r*  » 


University  of  California 


Los  Angeles 


Form  L  I 


7  195i 

k  9- 1956 

BAY  1  6  195y 


t  » 


^aV- 


LD^URl 


Jl 


•■  tX>S  ANGELES,  CALIF. 


FRANCE 
IN  THE   TWENTIETH   CENTURY 


FRANCE  IN  THE 

TWENTIETH 

CENTURY 


BY 

W.  L.  GEORGE 

Author  of  ''  Engines  of  Social  Progress''* 


NEW  YORK 
JOHN   LANE  COMPANY 

MCMIX 


PREFACE 

IN  the  first  chapter  of  this  book,  the  author  states  at 
length  the  difficulties  with  which  the  would-be 
writer  on  France  is  confronted.  After  perusing  them, 
the  reader  will  be  inclined  to  think  that  neither  the  able 
nor  the  sincere  can  ever  hope  to  fulfil  these  impossible 
conditions,  and  it  is  true  that  they  are  difficult  of 
realisation.  The  author  has  developed  his  views 
sufficiently  to  make  it  unnecessary  to  state  it  here, 
but  the  salient  fact  that  emerges  is  that  neither  the 
Frenchman  nor  the  alien  is, ideally  fitted  for  a  study  of 
France,  owing  to  his  natural  bias ;  the  obvious  inference 
is  that  the  most  favourable  position  is  that  of  a  hei- 
matlos,  whose  tendencies  are  half  French  and  half 
British,  who  is  born  and  educated  under  one  flag  and 
counter-influenced  under  the  other.  Thus  he  becomes 
a  neutral  and  able  to  take  up  a  sane  position. 

As  this  is  not  an  autobiography,  the  author  will  only 
state  briefly  the  circumstances  that  induce  him  to 
believe  that  he  is  in  a  position  to  judge  fairly ;  no 
credit  is  claimed  for  fortuitous  advantages,  but  he  may 
be  allowed  to  avail  himself  of  them  all  the  same.  He 
ventures  to  think  himself  capable  of  stating  fairly  the 
point  of  view  of  the  French  because  he  was  born  in 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

their  country,  educated  in  their  capital  up  to  and  in- 
cluding university  courses,  and  was  even  compelled  by 
the  law  to  serve  a  term  in  the  French  army.  By  train- 
ing and  by  environment,  therefore,  the  French  attitude 
of  mind  was  forced  upon  him  at  the  same  time  as  he 
obtained  a  knowledge  of  French  institutions. 

A  corrective  was  however  necessary  if  he  was  to  view 
France  with  the  eye  of  an  impartial  and  not  a  French 
observer.  This  was  supplied  by  the  fact  of  his  being 
of  English  stock  and  of  having  benefited  by  continual 
association  with  men  and  women  of  his  own  race  while 
still  resident  in  France.  Moreover,  after  completing 
his  military  service,  he  has  passed  in  Great  Britain  the 
five  years  immediately  preceding  the  publication  of  this 
book,  so  that  he  has  been  enabled  to  refresh  the  original 
British  influence  and  to  relieve  the  overwhelming  weight 
of  his  early  training. 

It  need  only  be  added  that  these  five  years  have  not 
entirely  divorced  the  author  from  the  land  of  his  birth ; 
he  retained  contact  with  it  and  its  language  by  the  prac- 
tice of  journalism  and  by  following  closely  the  march  of 
political  events  in  France.  Thus  he  happens  to  be  in  a 
privileged  position,  and  is  willing  to  forgo  any  tolera- 
tion which  is  accorded  as  a  rule  to  him  who  treats  of  a 
foreign  country. 

The  collection  of  the  information  contained  in  this 
book  has  been  laborious,  and  would  have  been  im- 
possible but  for  the  co-operation  of  individuals  who 
were  in  possession  of  special  knowledge.  The 
author   wishes,   therefore,   to  tender  his    most   sincere 


Preface 

thanks  to  Dr.  Etienne  May ;  Mr.  Gaston  Lacoin, 
barrister ;  M.  Raymond  Lauzerte,  of  the  Theatre 
Rejane ;  M.  Maurice  Kahn, editor  oi Pages  Litres;  and 
to  the  editor  of  Le  Temps. 

The  author  wishes  to  make  special  mention  of  the 
invaluable  assistance  of  Miss  H.  A.  Carson,  B.A.,  who 
has  not  only  been  generous  enough  to  place  at  his 
disposal  her  special  knowledge  of  the  questions  dealt 
with,  but  to  revise  and  correct  the  entire  subject-matter 
of  this  book. 


CONTENTS 

PAGB 

Preface vii 

Chronological  Table xiii 

CHAPTER 

I.    Introductory  Remarks i 

II.    The  Revolutionary  Spirit       ....  17 

III.  The  Republic 38 

IV.  The  Constitution 57 

V.    The  Constitution  and  the  Government      .  79 

VI.    Reaction 99 

VII.    Church  and  State 123 

VIII.    Socialism 152 

IX.    Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation        .        .  179 

X.    Trade  and  Colonies 200 

XI.    France  among  the  Nations      ....  223 

XII.    The  Birthrate 243 

XIII.  Education 264 

XIV.  The  Drama 289 

XV.    The  French  Woman 305  <- 

XVI.    Marriage 326  i- 

XVII.    Morality 348 

XVIII.    Conclusion 365 

Index 379 

xi 


CHRONOLOGICAL   TABLE 

May  lo.     Accession  of  Louis  XVI. 
July     4.     American  Declaration  of  Independence. 
Feb.  22.     Convocation  of  Notables. 
May  25.     Dismissal  of  Notables. 

Aug.    6.     King  holds  a  Lit  de  Justice'^  to  force  the  Parle- 
ment  to  register   the  edicts  of  Lomdnie   de 
Brienne. 
Aug.  15.     Exile  of  the  Parlefneni  to  Troyes. 

Conflict  between  King  and  Parlevient  continues. 

Convocation  of  States-General  for  May,  1789. 

The    Third    Estate    constitutes    itself    into    a 
"  National  Assembly." 

Fall  of  La  Bastille. 

All  class  privileges  abandoned. 

Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man. 

Titles  of  nobility  abolished. 

Flight  of  Louis  XVI  and  the  Royal  Family. 

Legislative  Assembly  meets. 

Sack  of  the  Tuileries. 

Abolition  of  the  Monarchy. 

Execution  of  Louis  XVI. 

Execution  of  Marie-Antoinette. 

Fall  of  Robespierre. 

Formation  of  the  Directoire. 

Bonaparte  becomes  First  Consul. 
^  Special  sitting. 


Aug. 

8. 

June 

17. 

July 

14. 

Aug. 

4- 

Aug. 

20. 

June. 

June 

21. 

Oct. 

I. 

Aug. 

ID. 

Sept. 

21. 

Jan. 

21. 

Oct. 

16. 

July 

27. 

Nov. 

I. 

Dec. 

13- 

l802. 

Aug. 

2. 

1804. 

May 

18. 

^815. 

July 

6. 

1824. 

Sept. 

16. 

1830. 

July. 

France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
Bonaparte  becomes  First  Consul  for  life. 

The  First  Empire. 

Final  accession  of  Louis  XVIII. 

Accession  of  Charles  X. 

Abdication  of  Charles  X. 

Accession  of  Louis-Philippe. 
Feb.     24.     Abdication  of  Louis-Philippe. 

The  Second  Republic 

Louis-Napoldon  President. 

The  Coup  d'Eiat. 

Louis-Napoldon  President  for  life. 

Napoldon  III  Emperor. 

Commercial  treaty  with  Great  Britain. 

Mexico  expedition. 

War  with  Prussia. 

Fall  of  the  Empire. 

The  Third  Republic, 

La  Commune;  civil  war. 

Peace. 

M.  Thiers  President  of  the  Republic. 

Marshal  MacMahon  President  of  the  Republic 
(vice  M.  Thiers  resigned). 

M.    Grdvy    President  of   the   Republic    (vice 
Marshal  MacMahon  resigned). 

Revision  of  the  Constitution. 

Re-election  of  M.  Gr^vy. 

Expulsion  of  members  of  families  which  had 
reigned  in  France. 
1887.     Dec.       3.     M.   Carnot   President  of   the   Republic   (vice 

M.  Grevy  resigned). 
1889.     Jan.-April.   The  Boulanger  agitation. 
1892.  Panama  scandals. 

1894.  Murder  of  AL  Carnot. 

June     27.     M.  Casimir-Perier  President  of  the  Republic. 


Dec. 

10. 

I85I. 

Dec. 

2. 

1852. 

Dec. 

2. 

i860. 

1862. 

1870-1 

[. 

1870. 

Sept. 

4- 

I87I. 

March 

18. 

May 

10. 

Aug. 

31- 

1873- 

May 

24. 

1879. 

1884. 

1835. 

Dec. 

28. 

1886. 

Chronological  Table 


1895. 


1897. 


Jan.       17. 

October. 
August, 


Jan, 


Jan. 

13- 

Aug, 

so- 

Dec, 

il. 

1899. 

Feb. 

18. 

June 

3- 

July 

13- 

Aug, 

12. 

Aug. 

20, 

Sept. 

20. 

Nov. 

18. 

I90I. 

1903. 

May 

I, 

July 

7- 

July 

22, 

Oct, 

14. 

1904. 

March  28, 

April      8, 
Dec.     22. 


Captain  Dreyfus  tried  and  sentenced, 
M,    Fdlix ,  Faure   President   of   the   Republic 
(vice  M,  Casimir-Pdrier  resigned). 

Visit  of  the  Tsar, 

The  President  visits  St,  Petersburg. 

Scheurer  Kestner  and  Zola  begin  the  Dreyfus 
agitation, 

Le  Siecle  publishes  the  text  of  the  indictment 
of  Captain  Dreyfus. 

Zola  indicts  the  General  Stafif  in  VAurore. 

Suicide  of  Colonel  Henry. 

Marchand  evacuates  Fashoda. 

M.  Loubet  President  of  the  Republic  (M.  Fdlix 
Faure  died  suddenly  after  being  in  office 
four  years). 

New  trial  of  Captain  Dreyfus  ordered. 

Confession  of  Esterhazy, 

Arrest  of  M,  Ddroulede  and  others  on  a  charge 
of  high  treason. 

Anarchist  riots  in  Pans. 

Captain  Dreyfus  pardoned. 

M.  Ddroulede  and  others  sentenced 

Law  passed  regulating  the  formation  of  re- 
ligious orders. 

The  King  visits  Paris  officially. 

M.  Loubet  at  the  Guildhall. 

French  Senators  and  Deputies  received  by  the 
House  of  Commons. 

Anglo-French  Arbitration  Treaty. 

Bill  for  the  suppression  of  teaching  in  con- 
ventual and  monastic  institutions  passed. 

The  "  Entente  Cordiale." 

The  North  Sea  incident.  Inquiry  commission 
meets  in  Paris. 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

1905.  June.  Morocco.     War  scare  with  Germany. 

Resignation  of  M.  Delcassd. 

Oct.  16.  The  Conseil  Municipal  of  Paris  visits  the 
London  County  Council. 

Dec.  6.  Separation  of  the  Church  from  the  State.  Re- 
peal of  the  Concordat. 

1906.  Jan.       17.     M.  Fallieres  President  of  the  Republic. 

Feb.  7.  The  London  County  Council  visits  the  Conseil 
Municipal  of  Paris. 

March  10.  "  Courri^res  "  colliery  disaster.  Labour  agita- 
tion. 

July.  Franco-British  Exhibition  decided. 

Dec.  6.  The  Separation  of  Church  and  State  Bill  comes 
into  force. 

1907.  January.        Bill  passed  allowing  of  the  conduct  of  Church 

worship  under  Common  Law. 
July.  Papal  Encyclical  on  "  Modernism  "  enunciat- 

ing the  tenets  that  must  be  accepted  by  the 
faithful. 


FRANCE  IN  THE 
TWENTIETH  CENTURY 

CHAPTER   I 
INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS 

IT  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  we  do  not,  as  a  rule,  take 
an  interest  in  that  which  lies  at  our  doors.  The 
ignorance  of  Londoners  of  the  beauties  of  their  own 
city  is  proverbial  and  as  remarkable  as  the  avidity  with 
which  they  approach  foreign  travel ;  any  book  dealing 
with  strange  lands  is  still  assured  of  a  ready  sale, 
provided  that  it  be  at  all  readable  and  not  over-bulky. 
Thus,  of  late  years,  we  have  seen  an  ever-increasing 
mass  of  Hterature  produced  by  legions  of  globe-trotters, 
every  one  striving  to  bring  out  the  quaint  and  the 
picturesque. 

The  quaint  and  the  picturesque :  that  formula  sums 
up  nine-tenths  of  the  pseudo-geographical  or  pseudo- 
economic  works  of  the  last  decade ;  we  know  a  little 
about  Japan  and  a  good  deal  about  South  Africa : 
whether  what  we  do  know  is  right  or  wrong  I  leave  to 
the  Japanese  and  to  the  Afrikander  to  decide.     I  do 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

not  wish  to  contend  seriously  that  we  should  limit  our 
curiosity  to  the  beaten  track  and  neglect  any  country 
that  does  not  lie  within  the  scope  of  Cook's  tours — if 
there  be  such  a  one ;  it  must,  however,  be  remembered 
that,  vital  as  our  interests  may  be  in  the  furthest  corners 
of  the  globe,  it  is  with  our  neighbours  that  we  are  most 
likely  to  differ ;  it  is  in  their  friendship  that  we  can 
hope  to  find  the  strongest  support  of  the  State.  This 
doctrine  may  savour  of  the  "parish  pump"  theory,  but 
there  are  worse  interests  in  the  world  than  the  parish 
pump. 

It  may  be  argued  that  this  is  a  sweeping  indictment, 
but  it  can  easily  be  upheld.  Nothing  is  so  difficult  to 
describe  as  a  foreign  land  and  a  foreign  race ;  the 
Englishman  who  lands  in  India  after  a  course  of 
Rudyard  Kipling  very  soon  realises  his  limitations,  and 
it  is  not  until  after  a  lapse  of  years  that  he  can  hope  to 
depict  from  personal  observation  the  characteristics  of 
the  people  among  whom  he  lives.  Should  he  settle  in 
a  European  country,  where  the  ideals  of  the  people 
and  the  methods  of  government  are  somewhat  similar 
to  those  he  has  left  behind  him,  his  difficulties  are  not 
less  but  greater.  The  more  similar  the  characteristics, 
the  more  subtle  are  the  differences  and  the  more  difficult 
it  is  to  fix  them ;  an  appropriate  simile  is  the  study  of 
languages :  any  philologist  or  any  linguist  will  admit 
that  it  is  far  easier  to  master  perfectly — I  do  not  say 
roughly — German  and  Spanish  than  German  and  Dutch. 
The  study  of  the  two  former  languages  sets  in  motion 
two  entirely  different  sets  of  "  mental  muscles,"  whereas 
the  two  latter  can  be  acquired  by  the  same  method  of 
observation  ;  thus  immense  difficulties  are  encountered 
because  differences  are  innumerable,  but  yet  so  slight 


Introductory  Remarks 

as  to  offer  no  hold  to  the  memory  or  to  the  logical 
faculty. 

The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  is  that  few  individuals 
are  really  fitted  to  describe  a  foreign  race.  If  they  be 
members  of  the  nation  they  wish  to  depict  they  are 
biased,  favourably  or  unfavourably,  and  in  most  cases 
their  education  and  environment  prevent  them  from 
perceiving  those  differences  which  at  once  arrest  the 
alien  eye ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  be  tourists  or 
settlers,  the  many  years  that  must  elapse  before  they 
can  speak  with  authority  tend  to  denationalise  them,  to 
place  them  out  of  touch  with  their  own  country.  Ex- 
cept in  very  rare  cases,  no  man  should  write  about  any 
land  but  that  of  his  birth. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  the  ideal 
conditions  are  difficult  of  realisation,  and  I  confess  that 
it  is  not  without  a  tremor  that  I  venture  to  approach 
the  subject.  Having  said  so  much  about  disabilities,  it 
is  not  fair  to  stop  at  destructive  criticism  ;  the  ideal 
situation  for  the  writer  who  wishes  to  paint  for  the 
British  public  a  true  picture  of  a  foreign  land  is  that 
of  a  man  of  British  parentage,  born  and  educated 
abroad  and  provided  during  his  childhood  and  youth 
with  a  British  atmosphere.  Thus,  while  assimilating 
the  characteristics  and  learning  the  traditions  of  his 
adopted  nationality,  he  does  not  lose  touch  with  his 
native  race.  He  becomes  a  foreigner,  but  a  sympathetic, 
an  understanding  foreigner ;  should  he  then,  in  early 
manhood,  return  to  the  land  of  his  ancestors,  he 
naturally  reverts  to  their  moral  and  intellectual  type  in 
so  far  that  his  individuality  is  recast,  that  he  understands 
their  aspirations  and  their  methods  of  thought.  His 
early  training  has  modified  him  so  deeply  that  he  can 

3 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

never  hope  to  shake  off  its  influence,  nor  is  it  desirable 
that  he  should  do  so ;  he  has  reached  the  ideal  state  of 
no  longer  belonging  entirely  to  one  race.  He  has  lost 
his  prejudices  and  gained  in  understanding  because  he 
can  no  longer  take  sides ;  he  can  see  the  institutions  of 
the  land  of  his  birth  with  British  eyes  as  well  as  he  can 
realise  the  effects  produced  upon  citizens  of  his  native 
land  by  British  customs  and  methods.^ 

The  Frenchman  who  settles  in  any  part  of  Great 
Britain  and  particularly  in  London  will,  as  a  rule,  very 
soon  acquire  an  immense  and  respectful  admiration 
for  British  institutions  and  manners ;  the  institutions 
appeal  to  him  by  their  broad  tolerance,  their  wide 
outlook  and  their  elasticity ;  British  manners  also 
achieve  an  easy  conquest  because  of  the  hospitality  of 
the  people  and  their  free  and  easy  cheerfulness.  Thus 
this  country  is  assured  a  friendly  critic :  no  man  who 
knows  England  can  avoid  loving  her,  whether  he  wish 
to  or  not.  There  is,  however,  one  thing  that  strikes 
and  irritates  both  the  Frenchman  and  the  settler  in 
France :  it  is  the  utter  and  painful  ignorance  in  which 
we  are  plunged  as  regards  French  customs  and  institu- 
tions, I  do  not  say  that  things  might  not  be  worse  ; 
at  the  present  time  the  British  people  are  sympathetic 
and  interested  in  things  French,  and  I  expect  that  they 
are  at  last  giving  up  the  delusions  they  have  hugged  so 
long  and  no  longer  believe  that  Frenchmen  are  born  in 
flat-brimmed  top-hats,  nor  that  they  progress  through 
a  life  sustained  by  means  of  frogs,  shrugging  their 
shoulders  and  crying  "  Mon  Dieu  ! "  But  the  British 
people  seem  unable  to  grasp  the  most  elementary 
characteristics  of  the  French  ;  they  do  not  understand 

^  See  Preface. 


Introductory  Remarks 

the  working  of  their  political  machine ;  they  are  blind 
to  the  aspirations  of  the  people  and  deluded  as  to  the 
social  future  of  the  land.  Such  a  state  of  things  is,  I 
acknowledge  it,  reciprocal,  but  none  the  less  for  that 
reason  unfortunate  and  dangerous ;  were  it  possible  to 
clear  up  half  the  misunderstanding,  the  rest  of  the  task 
would  be  easy. 

But  why,  will  it  be  asked,  are  the  British  so  profoundly 
ignorant  of  the  true  characteristics  of  a  race  with  which 
they  have,  for  a  thousand  years,  been  in  close  contact 
as  enemies  or  as  allies  ?  Above  all,  how  is  it  that  the 
Norman  Conquest  and  its  predecessor,  the  Roman 
Invasion,  did  not  level  up  the  two  countries,  given  that 
the  aboriginal  British  languages  have  been  practically 
swept  away?  It  is  strange,  and  I  would  be  inclined 
to  ascribe  the  differences  to  those  climatic  conditions 
which  have  ever  been  the  scapegoat  of  the  embarrassed 
ethnographer.  But,  setting  aside  the  question  of  natural 
differences,  with  which  we  are  not  really  concerned,  we 
must  ask  ourselves  how  it  is  that  these  acknowledged 
dissimilarities  are  misunderstood  whenever  perceived. 
The  causes  appear  to  be  threefold  :  they  are  our  insular 
position,  the  proximity  of  France,  and  the  imagination 
of  our  authors. 

Our  insular  position  has  ever  been  our  tower  of 
strength,  but  the  British  race  paid  for  it,  and  paid 
heavily :  its  character  has  tended  to  become  what  the 
French  call  tout  d'une  piece,  an  untranslatable  expression, 
meaning  roughly  "  out-and-out,"  or  better  still,  "  whole- 
hogger  "  ;  the  lack  of  a  common  frontier  has  impeded  the 
exchange  of  ideas:  it  has  left  full  scope  to  commerce  but 
it  has  not  favoured  friendly  relations  and  intermarriage. 
It  is  by  these  means  that  continental  nations  succeed  in 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

approximating  within  a  greater  or  lesser  degree,  and  it  is 
the  frontier  cross-breed  and  the  frontiersman  in  general 
who  serve  as  connecting  links  between  otherwise  alien 
states.  It  does  not  need  profound  study  to  realise  this; 
a  very  short  stay  in  Belgium,  Switzerland,  or  Alsace,  or 
even  an  acquaintance  with  emigrants  from  these  countries, 
at  once  demonstrates  that  this  is  the  case  ;  not  only  does 
it  seem  difficult  to  discover  a  Swiss  or  an  Alsacian 
whose  German  is  free  from  Gallicisms  and  vice  versd, 
not  only  is  it  rare  to  find  a  Belgian  capable  of  writing 
faultless  French,  but  the  very  physique  and  intellect  of 
these  peoples  have  been  modified.  All  have  some  of 
the  Latin  graces,  strangely  mingled  with  Teutonic 
stolidity — the  shallow  brilliance  of  the  Southerner  and 
the  steadfast  capacity  for  hard  work  of  the  Central 
European.  This  has  not  been  the  case  between  Great 
Britain  and  France,  any  more  than  between  Great 
Britain  and  any  other  continental  nation,  and  it  is  in 
great  part  for  that  reason  that  the  two  races  have 
never  understood  one  another  and  still  find  an  enormous 
difficulty  in  doing  so. 

Yet  the  differences  between  France  and  Great  Britain 
are  not  striking  enough  to  have  attracted  to  any  great 
extent  the  attention  of  authors  hunting  for  likely  sub- 
jects. Setting  aside  guide-books  and  encyclopaedias  and 
such-like  works  that  do  not  aspire  to  outline  the  soul  of 
the  race,  less  than  two-score  volumes  have  been  published 
during  the  last  twenty-five  years  dealing  on  a  fairly 
comprehensive  scale  with  French  institutions  and  cus- 
toms. This  may  look  like  a  large  number,  but  it  is  not 
so  if  we  consider  the  time  over  which  these  publications 
are  spread,  and  how  out  of  date  some  of  them  necessarily 
are ;  moreover,  most  people  have  no  conception  of  the 

6 


Introductory  Remarks 

number  of  books  that  are  necessary  before  the  public 
can  acquire  a  general  idea  of  any  subject.  At  least 
four  hundred  separate  works  have  been  published 
during  the  last  twenty  years  concerning  South  Africa 
and  the  South  African  wars,  over  and  above  millions  of 
columns  in  widely-read  reviews  and  newspapers,  and 
what  do  we  know  of  South  Africa  ?  Experiment  yields 
amazing  results.  If  such  be  our  ignorance  of  our  own 
colony,  how  much  less  may  we  know  of  a  foreign  power, 
allowance  being  made  for  proximity?  I  would  point 
out  that  the  British  traveller  has  only  of  late  years  been 
availing  himself  of  this  proximity  to  any  great  extent. 

France  has  not  attracted  much  attention :  it  was  too 
easy,  too  ordinary  for  serious  treatment;  there  was 
nothing  distinguished  or  unusual  about  the  normal 
characteristics  of  the  race.  One  could  write  about 
French  art  or  describe  a  tour  from  Dunkirk  to  Mar- 
seilles, but  it  was  not  worth  while  to  delve  into  the 
inner  being  of  the  French  race.  Thus  British  authors 
neglected  France  and  went  far  afield,  to  Mexico  and 
Tibet,  and  we  were  allowed  to  stagnate.  And  that 
again  is  why  the  British  do  not  understand  the  French : 
they  have  not  been  told  what  the  latter  really  are. 

Indeed  ?  will  the  reader  say,  but  is  not  every  other 
novel  full  of  Paris,  "  Gay  Paris "  and  the  Plages  of 
Normandy?  True,  too  true,  for  here  we  meet  the  third 
and  most  important  of  the  causes  to  which  we  can 
trace  international  estrangement :  the  mendacity  of 
certain  authors  or  their  ignorance.  Carelessly,  they 
have  written  of  France  and  things  French,  quoted  and 
misquoted  French  sayings,  and  for  what?  for  the  pur- 
pose of  "spicing"  their  books  by  attributing  to  the 
Gallic  race  every  trait  that  makes  good  "  copy,"   by 

7 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

turning  every  character  into  a  type,  and  then  loading  it 
with  attributes  that  Dickens  would  not  have  dared  to 
inflict  on  a  Jingle  or  a  Pecksniff.  Some  have,  no  doubt, 
been  sincere,  and  have  tried  to  understand  before  they 
wrote,  but,  borne  down  by  the  weight  of  tradition, 
hampered  by  prejudices  learned  at  school,  they  have 
been  carried  away  and,  losing  sight  of  the  true  French 
character,  they  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  quest  of 
the  quaint  and  the  picturesque.  And  thus,  by  this  con- 
tinual straining  after  the  effective,  thanks  to  this  extra- 
ordinary idea  that  France  is  a  land  where  all  is  odd,  the 
British  people  have  been  deluded  and  their  mind  has 
been  warped.  The  "book"  Frenchman  is  not  one  whit 
less  ludicrous  and  libellous  than  the  "  stage  "  French- 
man of  days  gone  by,  and  "  book  "  France  is  a  suitable 
habitat  for  this  strange  being. 

The  striving  after  the  quaint  and  the  picturesque  is 
in  keeping  with  the  tendency  of  modern  sensational 
literature,  with  modern  literary  taste  or  lack  of  taste ;  I 
know  it  is  not  worth  while  elaborating  a  lengthy  dis- 
quisition on  the  melancholy,  if  not  premature,  decease  of 
the  ponderous  tome  written  in  the  Johnsonian  manner, 
and  of  the  sombre  thunderings  that  still  occasionally 
echo  from  the  wutherin'  heights  of  certain  reviews  ;  yet 
this  effort  is  so  characteristic,  so  symbolical,  that  I  can- 
not refrain  from  pointing  out  with  what  fatal  effects  it 
has  reached  France  and  matters  French.  We  must 
allow  for  imagination  and  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  head- 
long impressionism  with  which  the  novelist  garnishes 
the  literary  feast  is  as  sincere  as  it  is  misguided  ;  a 
comic  giant  of  French  literature,  of  the  Falstaff  or 
Don  Quixote  type,  Tartarin  de  Tarascon,  was  somewhat 
given  to  pantagruelian  exaggeration  and,  if  I  remember 

8 


Introductory  Remarks 

right,  his  imagination  one  day  turned  the  accidental 
shooting  of  a  tethered  cow  into  an  encounter  with 
raging  lions ;  this  the  author  naively  explains :  "  Of 
course,  gentlemen,  it  was  not  true ;  it  was  a  mirage, 
merely  a  mirage."  I  am  afraid  that  the  average  British 
author  has  been,  like  Doctor  Syntax,  in  search  of  the 
picturesque  and  that  the  wide  plains  and  little  old  towns 
of  France  have  usually  provoked  in  him  a  severe  attack 
of  Tartarin's  malady. 

There  seems  to  be  a  constitutional  impossibility  to  get 
a  true  picture  from  the  average  British  author :  Sterne 
was  the  first  and  worst  offender  because  he  was  a 
humorist.  It  is  so  difficult  to  be  a  humorist  and  an 
honest  man  in  this  dull  world  of  ours;  true,  there  is 
humour  for  those  that  have  eyes  to  see  it,  and  thus  a 
man  may  be  a  humorist  and  yet  be  honest,  even 
though  honesty  make  not  the  best  humour.  The 
worst  danger  of  Sterne's  Sentimental  Journey  lay  in  the 
fact  that  it  was  so  good  ;  his  matchless  style  and  attar- 
of-roses  elegance  carried  with  them  a  charm  so  much 
greater  than  the  crudities  of  truth  that  even  the  seeker 
after  that  elusive  quality  lost  his  way  and  finally  his 
discrimination.  Sterne  led  and  others  followed,  pene- 
trated by  his  tradition,  timidly  attempting  his  manner, 
even  to  this  day ;  characteristic  beggars,  courteous  as 
cavaliers,  black-eyed  ladies  perpetually  in  distress  and 
perpetually  succoured  in  the  nick  of  time  by  noblemen 
with  the  best  of  dancing-school  manners,  ladies'  maids, 
crafty,  tyrannical,  and  mischievous,  became  the  recog- 
nised type  of  France  and  the  French.  As  time 
went  on  and  tastes  changed,  another  offender  ap- 
peared on  the  scene  and  that  was  a  greater  man  than 
Sterne,   a  man  whose   British  men  and  women  must 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
have  been  true  as  we  meet  them  every  day — I  mean 
Thackeray.  The  Paris  Sketch  Book,  Barry  Lyndon 
and  the  adventures  of  Mr.  Deuceace  again  set  up 
the  old  tradition  of  lightness  and  empty  frivolity  and 
gave  it  a  new  lease  of  life  ;  the  types  had  changed  but 
the  noblemen  were  still  there,  a  little  grimmer  and  not 
so  prone  to  presenting  ostlers  with  purses  of  louis  or 
napoleons,  as  the  case  might  be ;  and  the  ladies  still 
had  terrible  adventures  ;  and  the  beggars  still  struck 
attitudes.  New  types  had  come  in,  new  puppets  had 
been  dressed  :  the  rapin,  inimitable  word  next  which 
even  "  bohemian  "  is  a  pallid  sound,  had  come  in.  He 
had  come  with  his  slippers  and  his  velvet  coat,  his  pipe 
and  his  long  hair,  his  grisette  and  his  adjectives.  He 
has  never  left  us  for  good  ;  he  still  lives  in  the  Quartier 
Latin,  thanks  to  the  lurid  imagination  of  British  and 
American  art  students.  As  a  sometime  wearer  of  the 
beret'^  of  purple  velvet,  I  venture  to  express  my  incre- 
dulity in  his  existence.  But  what  matter  such  things  to 
a  writer  on  copy  bent?  Mr.  du  Maurier  followed  in 
magnificent  style  and  to  him  we  owe  the  crowning 
jewel  of  modern  insular  prejudice.  Mr.  du  Maurier's 
defects  were  those  of  Sterne :  he  was  so  dangerously 
seductive ;  who  will  forget  Dodor,  the  ducal  cuirassier, 
and  Zouzou,  the  dashing  knickerbocker  warrior,  and 
Bonzig,  the  fantastic  usher. J*  I  do  not  say  that  such 
types  do  not  exist,  any  more  than  I  feel  ready  to  deny 
Micawber  or  Sherlock  Holmes,  but  Mr.  du  Maurier  ran 
the  risk  that  Dickens  took,  in  that  he  filled  his  books 
with  peculiar  people.  But  whereas  Dickens  dealt  with 
England  and  wrote  for  the  English,  Mr.  du   Maurier 

^  A  cap,  somewhat  similar  in  shape  to  that  worn  by  the  English  in- 
fantryman ;  it  is  occasionally  used  by  Paris  law  and  medical  students. 

10 


Introductory  Remarks 

dealt  with  the  French  for  export  purposes ;  in  the  first 
case  we  could  discount  Micawber,  in  the  latter  we  had 
to  take  the  freaks  for  granted.  On  the  spacious 
shoulders  of  these  men  a  great  literary  edifice  has  been 
reared ;  their  delusions  have  tainted  the  work  of  their 
inferiors :  they  could  carry  off  their  error  by  the  luxuri- 
ance of  their  imagination,  by  the  subtle  pathos  of 
appeals  that,  in  others,  would  have  been  mawkish,  but 
their  disciples  lacked  their  quality  of  greatness  and 
knew  not  how  to  clothe  paltry  imaginings  in  the 
gorgeous  trappings  of  art. 

A  tradition  has  grown  up  and  waxes  fat  as  ever,  in 
spite  of  ententes  and  municipal  feastings  and  channel 
tunnels ;  the  French  have  certain  qualities,  certain 
characteristics,  certain  aspirations  and,  if  they  have  not 
got  them — well,  they  have  got  them  all  the  same.  This 
sturdy  belief  in  the  accuracy  of  one's  own  knowledge  is 
a  useful  quality  of  the  battering-ram  class,  but  it  has 
its  limitations  when  the  time  for  lighter  weapons  comes. 
I  am  aware  that,  in  these  isles,  similar  crazes  have 
prevailed,  but  they  are  dying  hard  ;  the  "stage"  Scotch- 
man is  still  with  us,  so  is  the  "stage"  Irishman,  and  so 
is  the  "stage"  bumpkin  whose  accent  serves  as  well  for 
Devon  as  for  Lancashire,  but  it  is  easy  enough  to  detect 
the  buffoonery  because  we  know  the  real  types  and 
occasionally  see  them  in  our  midst.  Moreover,  it  does 
no  Englishman  much  harm  to  assume  that  all  Scots  are 
mean  or  canny :  he  need  not  cross  the  Tweed  before 
something  happen  to  undeceive  him  and,  from  a  single 
instance,  he  becomes  as  pro-Scot  as  he  may  have  been 
anti-Scot.  With  the  French,  as  with  other  foreign 
nations,  it  is  different ;  we  have  no  political  relations 
with  Scotland,  whereas  we  have  such  ties  with  France ; 

II 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

if  we  do  not   understand   the   people  we   shall   never 
understand  their  policy. 

It  becomes  no  man  to  be  a  Cassandra,  particularly 
when  times  are  good,  but  good  times  never  last,  and  one 
need  not  be  a  born  pessimist  to  believe  that  "something 
unpleasant  is  going  to  happen  "  ;  it  always  does.  For 
that  reason  and  many  more,  it  seems  imperatively 
necessary  that  we  should  understand  the  French  a  little 
better,  know  their  opinions  and  general  views  and 
become  acquainted  with  French  institutions  and  their 
trend,  so  as  to  be  able  to  prophesy  what  the  people  will 
do  in  a  given  case.  We  must  divest  ourselves  of  preju- 
dice and  give  up  our  most  cherished  notions  as  to  the 
fascinating  schedule  which  has  endowed  the  French 
race  with  the  most  delightful  defects  and  the  most 
dangerous  of  qualities.  It  must  be  understood,  of 
course,  that  my  object  is  not  to  pull  down  one  idol  to 
put  up  another :  there  is  hardly  such  a  thing  as  national 
character,  just  as  there  is  no  such  thing  as  national  dis- 
honour; national  character  reveals  itself  in  an  emergency 
and  is  usually  that  of  the  strongest  man  of  the  day; 
nations  are  neither  good  nor  bad,  nor  are  they  clever  or 
foolish,  but  there  is  a  common  strain  that  runs  through 
the  great  majority  of  the  individual  elements  and  that 
is  the  nearest  approach  to  national  character.  It  is 
these  common  strands,  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  racial 
substance,  that  we  must  lay  bare  and  examine  if  we 
really  want  to  understand  the  people ;  in  this,  as  in 
most  cases,  it  is  far  better  to  be  ignorant  than  to  know 
a  little  and  to  know  that  little  wrongly.  Yet,  that  is 
what  we  have  done :  we  have  credited  the  French  with 
all  sorts  of  peculiarities ;  we  have  forged  for  them  a 
character  and,  whenever  we  meet  him,  we  try  to  force 


Introductory  Remarks 

the  individual  into  the  common  mould.  That  is  like 
applying  a  system,  an  invariably  dangerous  practice, 
because  there  always  comes  a  time  when,  in  a  given 
circumstance,  the  system  is  too  large  or  too  small,  and 
then  the  whole  structure  collapses. 

And  what  is  this  wonderful  character  which  has  been 
fabricated  by  our  literary  lions  and  emphasised  and 
garbled  by  our  literary  jackals  ?  A  very  complex  and 
curious  thing,  very  pretty  and  ingenious  like  all  clever 
toys  and  about  as  useful.  We  all  know  the  clothes  of 
the  "  stage  "  Frenchman,  but  what  of  the  brain  and  soul 
of  the  "  book  "  Frenchman  ? 

Half  our  writers  on  the  subject  aim  at  convincing  us 
that  the  Frenchman  is  a  light  and  airy  creature,  without 
a  care  for  the  morrow,  ever  gay  and  cheerful,  and  for 
all  this  there  is  a  basis  of  truth  ;  the  mistake  does  not 
proceed  from  a  lie  but  from  an  enormous  exaggeration 
of  appearances.  Any  man  who  comes  from  solid 
England  to  even  the  dullest  little  provincial  French 
town,  let  alone  to  Paris,  at  once  has  an  impression  of 
gaiety  and  facile  laughter ;  the  sun  shines,  the  streets 
are  white.  This  superficial  impression  fortifies  his 
traditional  preconception  and  here  we  have  another  firm 
believer  in  the  theory.  From  externals  to  internals  is 
an  easy  step  and,  at  once,  we  find  our  analytical  Briton 
delving  into  the  recesses  of  the  French  heart ;  for 
this  purpose,  he  apparently  peruses,  openly,  illustrated 
papers  which  he  may  have  purchased  on  the  sly 
in  Soho  ;  he  skims  a  few  novels  by  Mr.  Paul  Bourget 
or  Mr.  Marcel  Prevost,  with  the  aid  of  the  dictionary 
and  of  the  stern  eye  of  a  moralist  bent  on  being 
shocked  :  as  a  result  he  is  most  decidedly  shocked  and 
immediately    rates     French     literature     as     something 

13 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

exceedingly  entertaining  of  which  he  must  most  regret- 
fully disapprove.  Our  hypothetical  Briton  then  con- 
tinues his  investigations  and  discovers  over  again  that 
the  daughters  of  his  French  friends  have  dots  and  that 
some  of  them  seem  to  have  been  married  in  haste ; 
the  obvious  conclusion  is  that,  while  repenting  at  leisure, 
they  have  found  consolation  on  the  lines  indicated  by 
the  yellow-backed  novels.  Thoroughly  fortified  by  the 
confirmation  of  his  worst  suspicions,  our  Briton,  if  on 
knowledge  bent,  ultimately  strikes  a  decayed  conspirator 
with  a  noble  name,  who  explains  to  him  that  the 
Republic  is  tottering  under  Orleanist  blows  and 
that  the  country  is  a  hotbed  of  revolution,  chafing 
under  the  yoke  of  a  ruthless  democratic  government, 
and  that  the  time  is  coming  when  the  lilies  will  supplant 
the  hated  tricolour.  If  properly  introduced,  our  Briton 
may  obtain  access  to  certain  salons  of  the  Faubourg  St. 
Germain,  where  he  will  hear  of  plots  and  manoeuvres, 
of  Pretenders  imported  inside  pianos  and  of  royalist 
millions  waiting  to  be  spent.  With  the  natural  love  of 
the  Briton  for  a  monarchical  regime,  he  will  at  least  shed 
a  tear  over  the  beautiful  bygone  days  and  pray  for  a 
glorious  revival  of  the  splendid  past. 

This  is  a  burlesque.  I  do  not  deny  it ;  the  truth  is  often 
burlesque  when  seen  from  the  outside.  The  "  book " 
and  "  newspaper  "  Frenchmen  are  its  results  and,  there- 
fore, they  too  are  burlesque ;  the  public  never  seems  to 
tire  of  the  "  types."  Are  there,  then,  no  plain  men  and 
women  in  that  sunny  and  beautiful  land  ?  no  thought- 
ful souls,  no  workers?  The  British  nation  is  ready 
enough  to  credit  the  French  with  artistic  understanding, 
even  with  prowess  on  the  battlefield  with  a  few  excep- 
tions, say  in  favour  of    Henry   V   and  the   Duke   of 

14 


Introductory  Remarks 

Wellington.  Yet  it  apparently  refuses  to  take  the 
French  seriously  and  to  understand  that  they  are  really 
very  European  and  not  particularly  Latin ;  in  certain 
directions  their  ideas  do  not  harmonise  with  British 
standards,  because  so  many  of  these  are  founded  on  ex- 
ternals and  France  is  no  respecter  of  them. 

My  contention,  therefore,  is  this :  that  the  French 
nation  is  at  heart  very  similar  to  ours,  that  its  philo- 
sophical ideals  and  our  own  are  practically  identical, 
and  that  its  system  of  government  is  neither  the  liberty 
of  which  France  boasts  nor  the  liberty  of  which  Great 
Britain  boasts.  What  I  wish  to  show  is  in  what  par- 
ticulars individuals,  systems  and  customs  differ,  so  as  to 
arrive  at  a  correct  understanding  of  the  state  of  things 
at  the  present  time.  During  the  last  year  or  two  the 
British  people  have  been  rudely  enough  awakened  from 
their  complacent  illusions  by  the  headlong  progress  of 
French  democracy  and  its  tilt  against  Army  and  Church ; 
as  people  are,  however,  not  very  given  to  connecting 
current  events  and  drawing  conclusions  from  them,  it 
may  be  useful  to  give  a  general  view  of  the  parties  that 
confront  one  another  in  the  political  cockpit,  of  the  indi- 
viduals that  compose  them,  and  of  the  systems  that 
have  formed  these  individuals  and  endowed  them  with 
their  impulses. 

It  must,  of  course,  be  understood  that  this  is  not  a 
guide-book  or  an  encyclopaedia,  for  with  these  we  are 
well  provided.  It  is  easy  to  obtain  descriptions  of  the 
castles  on  the  Loire,  and  of  the  pictures  in  the  Louvre, 
as  it  is  easy  to  obtain  statistics  relating  to  the  shrinking 
birth-rate  and  to  foreign  trade.  I  do  not  claim  to  put 
forward  many  new  facts,  but  to  state  those  which  should 
be  notorious  in  a  truthful  manner.     At  best,  a  book  on 

15 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

a  nation  or  a  country  can  be  but  an  impressionist  sketch, 
and  all  that  can  be  expected  is  a  touch  of  nature  ;  for 
the  imaginative  that  is  sufficient,  and,  for  the  stolid, 
reiteration  and  vigorous  assertion  must  serve  the  pur- 
pose. No  man  can  compress  between  two  covers  all 
that  should  be  said  of  France  and  the  French,  and, 
even  should  he  do  so,  the  result  would  not  be  perfect 
unless  the  author  had  the  gift  of  thought  transference  ; 
yet  a  great  deal  may  be  done  to  explain  apparent  anom- 
alies, and  the  best  way  appears  to  be  to  ignore  them 
and  to  state  the  truth  plainly  and  in  its  entirety. 


i6 


CHAPTER   II 
THE   REVOLUTIONARY  SPIRIT 

A  GOOD  revolutionary  is  born,  not  made,  like  the 
poet  with  whom  he,  by  the  way,  has  a  great  tieal 
in  common  ;  both  cherish  ideals,  both  must  overcome 
immense  difficulties  and  both  have  the  habit  of  failure 
with  the  alternative  of  greatness.  Thus,  in  all  nations, 
a  proportion  of  the  citizens  are  born  rioters,  uncon- 
scious of  it  as  they  often  may  be ;  what  visions  does 
such  a  statement  conjure  up  of  slumbering  fires  buried 
deep  in  the  hearts  of  apparently  peaceful  citizens,  good 
husbands  and  fathers,  who  are  really  Guy  Fawkes  sans 
le  savoir !  Their  temperament  lacks  opportunity  to 
develop,  mainly  because  there  is  nothing  to  incite  them 
to  carry  the  blazing  torch  through  the  homesteads,  but 
they  are  there  and  ready.  It  depends,  therefore,  on 
their  numbers  whether  revolution  is  going  to  be  endemic 
or  non-existent.  To  produce  social  movements  on  a 
large  scale,  either  one  man  or  a  multitude  is  required  ; 
in  the  first  case  the  peculiarities  of  his  personality,  the 
bravery  of  the  man,  his  wit  or  his  impertinence  come 
so  markedly  to  the  fore  that  thousands  of  neutrals 
follow  and  bear  him  to  the  pinnacle  of  his  hopes  ;  in 
the  second  case  the  restive  element  kindles  thousands 
of  fires  and  finally  sets  the  whole  edifice  ablaze.  In 
both  cases  the  existing  system  comes  down  with  a  crash, 
c  17 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

but  its  downfall  is  attended  by  different  results :   the 
triumph  of  a  man  or  the  triumph  of  a  people. 

Thus,  it  becomes  evident  that,  if  a  considerable 
section  of  a  race  are  born  revolutionaries,  the  result  will 
be -a  perpetual  struggle  between  persons  and  parties 
and  the  land  will  know  no  rest  except  under  a  dictator 
— while  even  changes  of  dictators  must  be  taken  into 
account;  revolution  is  a  fascinating  form  of  sport, 
certainly  more  interesting  than  the  most  hazardous  big- 
game  shooting,  perhaps  even  than  man-hunting.  If 
evidence  be  needed,  consider  for  a  moment  the  history 
of  the  South  American  republics,  where  revolution  has 
been  brought  to  the  highest  degree  of  frequency. 

Strange  to  say,  whereas  revolution  is  a  perfectly 
natural  phenomenon,  most  men  look  upon  it  as  an 
awful  and  abnormal  thing,  either  very  beautiful  or  very 
repugnant,  according  to  their  temperament.  This  view 
proceeds  mainly  from  ignorance  of  what  revolution 
really  is.  Revolution  is  simply  extract  of  evolution, 
evolution  in  a  hurry ;  when  a  bottle  of  champagne  has 
been  corked  too  early  and,  fermenting,  bursts,  that  is  a 
revolution.  Yet  we  do  not  think  it  extraordinary  that 
the  bottle  should  burst  and  think  it  wonderful  that  a 
system  should  collapse,  although  the  two  cases  are 
identical.  Man  is  a  long-suffering  animal,  and  upon 
his  head  centuries  of  misrule  may  be  heaped  with 
impunity ;  feeble  protests  are  made  by  individuals  as 
the  years  roll  on,  but  the  bulk  of  the  people  go  on  dully 
suffering  without  knowing  the  cause  of  their  disease ; 
they  well  know  that  they  are  unhappy,  though  they  do 
not  know  why.  Yet,  how  hard  it  is  to  make  them  see 
the  root  of  the  evil,  every  reformer  knows.  The  reason 
is  not  far  to  seek  :  the  people  are  short-sighted  and  the 

i8 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

evil  must  be  great  before  they  can  see  it ;  it  must  be 
overwhelming.  The  champagne  bottle  does  not  burst 
under  a  given  pressure,  nor  perhaps  under  double  that 
pressure :  there  are  no  outward  signs  that  it  is  about  to 
give  way,  yet  one  day  the  strain  becomes  intolerable 
and  then  the  explosion  happens  unexpectedly  with  a 
violence  rendered  more  appalling  by  its  suddenness. 
To  complete  the  metaphor,  let  it  be  recalled  that  the 
bottle  would  never  have  burst  if  the  cork  had  been 
withdrawn  in  time  :  that  is  the  story  of  all  popular 
revolutions. 

The  causes  of  such  movements  can  all  be  summed  up 
in  one  :  grinding  the  faces  of  the  people.  I  repeat  it : 
the  people  will  bear  a  great  deal  without  complaint,  but 
there  comes  a  time  when  they  will  brook  no  longer  the 
insolence  of  a  tyrant  or  an  oligarchy.  Give  men  com- 
fort, a  fair  measure  of  equity  and  opportunity  and  the 
means  of  attaining  a  certain  degree  of  culture,  and  there 
will  be  no  revolutions ;  systems  may  evolve  slowly  and, 
in  fact,  they  will  infallibly  do  so,  but  so  slowly  that  pro- 
gress will  be  imperceptible  and  painless.  But  treat  men 
as  cattle,  refuse  them  the  most  elementary  liberties,  and 
eventually  they  will  break  loose  and  vent  the  accumu- 
lated fury  of  centuries  upon  existing  and  innocent 
systems. 

A  grievance  never  disappears;  if  it  is  flouted  it  returns 
with  v'-" wearied  persistence — indeed  it  grows  ever  more 
clamorous.  You  can  muzzle  it,  you  can  hide  it,  but  you 
cannot  destroy  except  by  curing  it.  I  think  it  was 
Mr.  Chamberlain  who  said,  with  a  different  application, 
"  You  cannot  stop  a  storm  by  sitting  on  the  barometer," 
and  in  no  case  is  it  truer  than  in  this.  When  to  the 
grievance  is  added  another  and  yet  another,  you  have 

19 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

the  seed  of  revolution  ;  the  unheeded  voices  grow  ever 
angrier  and  ever  more  threatening :  their  demands  are 
not  abstract  but  concrete ;  they  know  what  they  want 
and  they  must  have  it.  If  it  be  granted,  the  clamour 
subsides ;  if  it  be  refused,  the  red  flag  is  unfurled. 
There  never  was  a  popular  revolution  without  a  good 
reason  ;  the  mob  has  most  of  the  vices  of  humanity  and 
few  of  its  virtues,  but  it  is  always  right  in  so  far  as  it  is 
goaded  by  a  real  sense  of  injury. 

Grievances  are  many  and,  if  we  look  at  them  closely, 
we  find  that  they  all  resolve  themselves  into  a  struggle 
for  liberty.  Refuse  liberty  and  revolution  will  ultimately 
follow ;  withdraw  it  when  it  has  been  granted  and  re- 
volution will  follow  at  once.  It  matters  not  whether 
parliamentary  government,  the  freedom  of  the  Press  or 
liberty  of  conscience  be  at  stake  :  the  desire  for  liberty 
in  the  abstract  is  the  principal  factor,  and  liberty  is 
perhaps  the  only  thing  worth  fighting  for  in  this  world. 
Sow  the  storm  and  you  reap  the  whirlwind  :  deny  men 
their  rights  and  they  will  take  yours  from  you.  Griev- 
ances do  not  rapidly  cause  revolutions ;  when  the  Press 
is  not  free  the  malcontents  find  it  particularly  difficult  to 
get  to  know  one  another,  to  engineer  their  plots  and  to 
combine  their  forces;  organised  authority  has  an  immense 
advantage,  due  to  its  administrative  resources  and  its 
possession  of  material  means.  Grievances  would  have 
to  cry  so  loudly  as  to  reach  even  the  governing  classes, 
as  is  the  case  in  Russia,  and  even  then  progress  is  slow. 
Grievances  are  the  dynamite,  but  a  detonator  is  wanted, 
which  role  is  filled  by  another  agent,  the  agitator. 

The  word  "  agitator "  is  taken  as  an  insult,  but  the 
agitator  for  a  popular  cause  is  really  a  very  fine 
specimen   of  humanity ;   he   may  be  quixotic,  violent, 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

prejudiced,  but  at  any  rate  he  is  courageous,  ready  to 
come  out  into  the  open,  to  suffer  and,  if  necessary,  to 
die  for  his  cause.  He  is  essential  to  the  prompt  success 
of  a  revolution  ;  he  it  is  whose  burning  speeches  make 
more  recruits  than  tyrant-ridden  centuries  ;  he  it  is  who 
stirs  the  neutral  and  makes  the  sluggish  current  of  his 
blood  flow  quicker  in  his  veins.  His  word  spreads 
through  the  land  and  soon,  thanks  to  him  alone,  the 
whole  country  is  ablaze.  Even  were  there  no  agitators 
there  would  be  revolutions,  just  as  there  are  earth- 
quakes and  volcanic  eruptions,  but  they  would  be 
slower  to  come  and,  therefore,  far  more  terrible  in  their 
results.  The  agitator  may  string  his  scores  of  victims 
up  to  lamp-posts,  but  the  Jacquerie  will  murder  its 
thousands  when  the  people's  blood  is  up.  He  does  not 
cause  a  revolution  :  he  may  hasten  its  coming,  but  it 
would  have  to  happen  in  any  case,  and  surely  it  is 
better  to  face  it  at  once  than  to  allow  it  for  years  to 
threaten  the  State. 

Real  revolution  proceeds  exclusively  from  grievances, 
that  is  understood ;  but  there  is  another  factor  that 
ranks  with  the  agitator,  as  it,  too,  hurries  on  the  in- 
evitable movement.  It  is  the  sudden  realisation  of 
their  power  by  a  hitherto  down-trodden  people ;  again 
the  lack  of  liberty  is  the  root  cause  and  that  alone 
would  ultimately  suffice ;  but  there  are  strange  things 
in  the  psychology  of  races,  and  one  of  them  is  the 
awakening  of  the  people  to  a  consciousness  of  its 
strength.  You  may  tether  an  elephant  to  a  small 
wooden  peg  and  you  have  him  secure,  but,  should  he 
grasp  the  fact  that  he  is  strong,  all  goes  down  before 
him.  Nations,  or  rather  classes,  are  in  the  same  posi- 
tion ;  they  suffer,  they  are  envious  of  other  classes,  but 

21 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

they  dare  not  attack  them  because  they  have  no  com- 
bination, no  reserve  strength,  because  they  do  not  even 
know  their  power.  Scattered  they  can  do  nothing  and 
they  know  it,  but  slowly  the  classes  begin  to  form  into 
groups  for  minor  purposes ;  their  strength  grows  apace 
and,  little  by  little,  they  grow  more  aggressive.  Then, 
perhaps,  one  day  they  understand  that  they  are  a  hun- 
dred to  one,  and  all  the  accumulated  pain  of  centuries 
rises  before  their  eyes  .  .  .  there  again  is  revolution, 
hastened  by  the  new-born  consciousness  of  power. 
Combination  begins  in  the  committee  rooms  of  friendly 
societies  and  goes  on  in  those  of  Trade  Unions,  where 
it  assumes  a  more  militant  attitude ;  by  degrees  a  more 
vigorous  spirit  is  infused  into  it  and  politics  come  under 
consideration.  Once  it  has  started  on  that  path,  the 
new  power  either  bends  the  system  or  breaks  it ;  it 
cannot  be  defeated  because  it  has  behind  it  numbers, 
grievances  and  voracious  ambition.  One  day,  in  all 
countries,  when  these  combined  men  fully  understand 
the  power  vested  in  them,  they  will  rise  and  demand 
more  than  the  system  will  give,  and  then  we  shall  see 
another  revolution  when  none  who  are  neutral  will  be 
spared. 

All  this  tends  to  show  that  revolution  in  itself  is  a 
very  natural  occurrence  and  that,  in  most  cases,  we 
ought  not  to  be  surprised  because  it  happens,  but 
because  it  did  not  happen  a  hundred  years  earlier. 
This  being  accepted,  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the 
irregularity  of  the  phenomena ;  in  a  sense  there  is  a 
revolutionary  zone,  just  as  there  is  an  earthquake  zone. 
Within  its  confines,  unrest  is  frequent  and  violent  and 
the  revolutionary  barometer  is  there  for  every  man  to 
read.     It  would  be  invidious,  as  well  as  difficult,  to  in- 

22 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

dicate  this  troublous  region  on  the  map,  for  it  would  be 
necessary  to  fix  a  period  during  which  we  took  revolu- 
tions into  account :  what  reason  have  we  to  take  the 
last  hundred  years  rather  than  the  last  five  hundred? 
However,  in  the  present  case,  the  question  is  unim- 
portant as  we  are  concerned,  not  with  the  convulsions 
through  which  the  world  has  passed,  but  with  those  that 
France  has  so  magnificently  survived. 

Ever  since  1789  when,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
France  made  her  first  experiment  in  revolutions, 
political  unrest  and  changes  of  n^gime  have  been  as 
frequent  as  in  the  wildest  of  Ruritanias.  The  French 
race  has  vacillated  from  Republic  to  Monarchy,  with  an 
occasional  dictature,  until  1870,  when  it  apparently 
made  up  its  mind  that  the  Republican  system  was  the 
best;  roughly  speaking,  from  1789  to  1870  and  includ- 
ing both  these  dates,  France  has  lived  through  about  a 
dozen  changes  of  regime.  I  advisedly  say  "about,"  as 
it  is  hardly  fair  to  count  the  changes  that  brought  the 
First  Republic  by  slow  stages  under  the  dictature  of 
Napoleon,  nor  the  short  interval  after  Elba  during 
which  the  Emperor  reasserted  himself  However, 
whether  the  changes  were  slow  or  not,  whether  they 
proceeded  from  popular  risings  or  from  the  personal 
ambition  of  a  man,  they  took  place  and  we  can  hardly 
reckon  them  as  less  than  ten  in  a  little  over  eighty  years  ; 
thus  the  average  life  of  French  systems  of  government 
from  the  First  Republic  to  the  Third,  and  let  us  hope 
last,  has  been  eight  years.  This,  in  itself,  is  a  rather 
disturbing  fact  as  regards  the  character  of  the  French, 
and  it  would  be  still  more  threatening  for  the  peace  of 
Europe  if  we  did  not  remember  that  close  on  forty  years 
have  elapsed  since  the  existing  system  was  established. 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Thus  we  arrive  at  a  charge  sometimes  levelled  at  the 
French  race,  viz.  that  it  is  imbued  with  the  revolutionary 
spirit,  that  it  is  unreliable  and  that  no  government 
enjoys  any  chance  of  stability.  This  is  an  old  prejudice, 
born  in  the  last  days  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when 
the  Great  French  Revolution  was  fresh  in  every  mind 
and  was  held  up  to  execration  by  party  leaders  and 
polemics ;  that  would  have  been  enough  to  grave  it 
deeply  into  the  British  mind,  so  prone  is  it  to  accept  the 
ancient  in  lieu  of  the  accurate.  The  old  prejudice  was, 
I  confess,  considerably  justified  by  the  overthrow  of 
successive  French  governments.  The  British  have  not 
yet  arrived  at  the  view  that  revolution  is  normal :  when- 
ever a  French  system  was  upset,  they  either  pointed  the 
finger  of  scorn  at  those  erratic  Southerners  and  pro- 
phesied another  outbreak  within  a  few  months,  or  they 
treated  the  whole  matter  with  indifference  as  we  nowadays 
do  a  South  American  convulsion.  The  British  public 
became  accustomed  to  French  revolutions,  and  not  only 
is  it  with  great  surprise  that  it  realises  that  the  last  was 
in  1870,  but  it  is  still  asking  itself  when  the  next  one 
will  come.  I  should  not  like  to  say  "  never,"  but  it  is 
certainly  not  in  sight.  If  the  British  took  the  natural 
view  of  revolutions  that  other  nations  take,  they  would 
understand  that  another  upheaval  is  not  likely  to  take 
place  just  now,  because  all  these  changes  through  which 
France  has  passed  were  the  necessary  birth  pangs  of  the 
present  system.  I  hope  to  show  further  on  by  what 
absolutely  normal  stages  France  has  attained  its  present 
state  and  how  essential  most  of  them  were  to  her  de- 
velopment. 

The  obvious  retort  to  this  assertion  is,  of  course,  the 
question,  "  What  reason  is  there  for  thinking  that  the 

24 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

evolution  is  finished  and  that,  in  future,  it  will  be  peace- 
able?" It  may  not  always  be  such,  but,  in  likelihood,  it 
will  be.  If  we  review  the  history  of  France  for  the  last 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  we  find  that  it  has  been  a 
continual  struggle  between  absolutism  of  a  more  or  less 
deep  dye  and  democracy  of  a  more  or  less  advanced 
type.  Each  system  has  had  several  chances,  in  every 
case  by  favour  of  the  reaction  that  followed  on  the 
downfall  of  its  predecessor.  But,  whereas  every  time 
democracy  came  in  it  came  in  strong,  every  time  abso- 
lutism triumphed  it  had  to  triumph  cautiously,  and  it 
collapsed  as  soon  as  it  tried  to  assert  itself  overmuch. 
Finally,  democracy  came  in  in  tremendous  force  ;  it  has 
stayed  in  for  so  long,  and  has  ground  its  enemies  so  fine, 
that  we  may  look  upon  it  as  established  for  ever.  It 
may  alter :  there  may  be  a  slight  reaction  against 
democracy,  but  it  is  much  more  likely  that  ideas  will 
grow  more  extreme ;  in  any  event  the  established 
democracy  will  inevitably  triumph  because,  and  here 
I  strike  the  root  of  the  old  prejudice,  the  French  have 
not  got  the  revolutionary  spirit. 

A  section  of  the  British  people,  a  section  which  is 
happily  decreasing,  holds  the  view  that  revolution  is 
always  latent  in  France  and  that  it  only  awaits  a 
favourable  opportunity  to  break  out ;  their  brains  are 
haunted  by  the  idea  of  Orleanist  and  Bonapartist 
intrigues,  and  any  arguing  against  this  fallacy  appears 
in  their  eyes  in  the  light  of  plot-stifling  of  the  very 
worst  kind.  To  them  I  can  only  say  that,  if  they  waited 
for  nearly  forty  years  for  the  tidal  wave  that  should 
wash  away  the  tottering  structure  of  the  Third  Re- 
public, their  patience  is  admirable  and  will  no  doubt 
be  tested  further.     The  French  do  not  like  revolutions  ; 

25 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

in  fact,  being  probably  a  less  pugnacious  race  than  the 
British,  they  may  like  them  even  less  than  the  latter. 
If,  in  spite  of  this,  France  has  revolutions  and  Britain 
has  not,  it  is  mainly  because  the  French  indulge  in  a 
revolution  without  analysing  the  position,  whilst  the 
British  consider  at  length  and  then  postpone  action  for 
a  century.  Reforms  have  been  achieved  in  France  by 
means  of  the  gun,  which  is  short  work;  in  Great  Britain 
they  either  proceeded  from  the  slow  pressure  of  vacil- 
lating public  opinion  or  they  are  still  on  the  way.  I 
do  not  say  that  France  is  ahead  of  Great  Britain  in  all 
things,  but  at  any  rate  it  enjoys  a  simplicity  of  govern- 
ment and  a  democratic  activity  unknown  to  the  sup- 
porters of  the  labyrinthine  laws  that  form  the  British 
Constitution. 

When  there  have  been  revolutions  in  France,  it  has 
been  because  there  were  very  good  reasons  for  having 
them  and  at  once.  The  French  will  not  tolerate 
tyranny  for  very  long  and,  if  they  wish  to  rid  them- 
selves of  it,  they  are  ready  to  adopt  radical  measures ; 
in  the  chapter  on  the  question  of  Church  and  State,  it 
may  be  seen  how  the  French  Government  has  settled 
the  difficulty  in  a  few  years.  That  is  a  kind  of  revolu- 
tion ;  it  has  been  sharp  and  short.  Apparently  the 
question  is  settled,  while  England  and  Wales  continue 
to  struggle  with  minor  difficulties  such  as  the  educa- 
tion problem,  and  will  probably  continue  to  do  so  until 
Doomsday. 

The  great  mass  of  the  French  people  is  composed  of 
the  lower  middle-classes,  who  are  perhaps  of  more  con- 
servative temperament  than  even  the  British ;  the 
reason  is  to  be  found  in  the  savings  which  this  class 
invariably  amasses,  and   in  the   fact  that  millions   of 

26 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

peasants  possess  estates  ranging  between  five  and  fifty 
acres  (small  holdings,  according  to  British  law).  This 
enormous  mass  of  persons  is  absolutely  peaceable  and 
aspires  to  nothing  but  quiet,  the  right  to  do  what  it 
chooses  and  to  say  what  it  chooses ;  the  peasants  are 
not  very  much  concerned  with  the  nature  of  the  govern- 
ment, but  they  have  found  that  the  Republic  alone 
secures  them  from  interference,  and  they  support  it 
with  an  obstinacy  that  would  have  cheered  the  heart  of 
a  Beaconsfield  in  search  of  sound  Tories.  "  Give  us 
peace!"  is  their  perpetual  cry,  "so  that  we  may  conduct 
our  business,  enjoy  our  pleasures  and  die  content, 
bequeathing  to  our  sons  an  equally  happy  future."  This 
ideal  may  be  high  or  low,  but  such  it  is ;  personal 
observation  has  demonstrated  to  me  that  the  cherished 
ambition  of  tradesmen,  officials  and  employees  is  to 
amass  enough,  by  a  life  of  toil,  to  live  out  a  peaceful 
old  age  in  a  rural  or  suburban  retreat.  Are  those  your 
revolutionaries  ?  your  fiery  sans-adottes  ?  They  are  : 
interfere  with  their  liberty  and  the  Jacobin  blood  that 
flows  in  their  veins  will  reassert  itself  as  it  did  in  1830,  in 
1848,  in  1870;  they  hate  war  but,  if  their  country  is 
menaced  by  the  foreigner,  they  will  fight  him  bravely ; 
they  hate  internal  strife,  but  threaten  their  liberty  and 
they  will  rise  up  in  arms.  They  will  tolerate  the  exist- 
ence of  a  class  they  detest,  but  they  will  not  brook  its 
tyranny ;  they  will  place  a  man  or  his  party  at  their 
head,  but  not  even  he  shall  grind  their  faces ;  they  have 
but  one  political  god — the  Republic,  one  and  indi- 
visible. Is  not  this  an  ideal  ?  and  is  it  not  natural  that 
they  should  have  broken  out  into  revolution  every  time 
they  did  ?  Every  French  Revolution  has  come  about 
through  good  reasons  that  any  one  can   understand ; 

27 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

whether  we  take  them  as  a  whole  or  one  by  one,  this 
fact  is  apparent  to  the  most  biased  mind. 

Is  it  necessary  to  go  back  as  far  as  the  great  Revo- 
lution of  1789?  Its  causes  and  its  history  have  absorbed 
the  activity  of  some  of  the  most  profound  French, 
British  and  German  thinkers;  it  has  been  described  in 
the  most  impartial  spirit,  though  some  writers  have  not 
dealt  fairly  with  it,  and  it  has,  in  fact,  been  approached 
from  every  side.  I  suppose  the  British  people  know  of 
it  best  through  Carlyle ;  the  traces  of  his  resplendent 
piece  of  rhetoric  are  to  be  found  in  most  of  the  opinions 
that  are  occasionally  bandied  about  in  a  loose  and 
irresponsible  spirit.  Carlyle  gave,  in  this  prose  epic,  a 
series  of  flamboyant  pictures,  rather  than  a  connected 
narrative  ;  his  philosophical  Radicalism,  coloured  by  his 
mysticism,  estranged  him  from  Whiggery  as  from 
modern  Liberalism ;  his  trust  in  strong  governments 
induced  him  to  believe  that  the  Revolution  was  but  the 
prelude  of  an  impending  reconstruction,  an  impression 
which  events  proved  to  be  correct.  But  Carlyle  never 
had  true  sympathy  with  the  upheaval,  much  as  he  may 
hold  up  for  our  admiration  a  Mirabeau  or  a  Robe- 
spierre; cynic  and  pessimist,  he  saw  the  Revolution  more 
as  an  avenging  earthquake  than  as  the  birth  of  a 
national  consciousness.  Carlyle's  singular  isolation  and 
his  estrangement  from  all  accepted  currents  of  thought 
tended  to  make  him  harbour  views  that  do  not  accord 
with  the  French  character,  a  thing  utterly  alien  to  this 
most  Scotch  of  Scotchmen.  Be  that  as  it  may,  and 
taking  into  account  the  monarchic  tendencies  of  the 
British  people,  we  find  that,  though  the  Revolution  has, 
in  a  sense,  been  accepted  in  this  country,  it  is  not 
looked  upon  with  favour,  mainly  because  it  was  bloody 

28 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

and  brutal.  Sympathy  for  a  king,  the  weak  offspring 
of  a  degenerate  line,  for  a  queen  to  whose  charge  can 
be  laid  much  of  the  blood  that  was  spilled,  for  an  aris- 
tocracy who  died  well  but  who  richly  deserved  to  die, 
has  warped  the  British  mind  and  made  it  unfair  to  this 
great  and  glorious  settlement  of  accounts. 

I  cannot  here  proceed  to  refute  the  charges  of  bar- 
barity that  are  levelled  at  the  movement ;  the  Revolution 
began  with  constitutional  government  and  it  might  have 
halted  there  had  the  regime  not  proved  unworkable  :  as 
it  is,  the  mob  was  let  loose  and,  as  it  had  a  great  task  to 
accomplish,  the  mob  lost  its  head  as  it  always  does. 
But  what  does  it  matter,  now  that  those  days  are  passed 
and  that  we  enjoy  the  good  while  the  evil  has  been 
washed  away  ?  La  Terreur  is  only  an  incident  in  a  great 
social  movement  which  began  some  thirty  years  before 
the  first  shot  was  fired  and  is  perhaps  not  yet  over ;  the 
Revolution  was  not  brought  on  by  the  bloodthirstiness 
of  a  class  or  group :  it  was  caused  by  deep  and  cruel 
sufferings.  Maddened  by  its  past  and  its  inheritance  of 
oppression,  the  mob  triumphant,  intoxicated  by  its 
wrongs  and  its  victories,  wreaked  its  vengeance  upon 
those  to  whom  it  had  before  then  only  meted  out 
justice. 

The  French  Revolution  was  the  direct  result  of  war,  of 
national  war  extending  from  the  earliest  days  of  the 
Monarchy  to  the  last ;  more  particularly  was  it  the 
result  of  the  wars  of  Louis  XIII,  Louis  XIV  and  Louis 
XV ;  in  their  train  followed  the  most  abject  poverty, 
famine,  the  plague,  taxes  and  ever  more  taxes.  For  a 
hundred  and  fifty  years  the  people  bore  all  loyally 
enough,  but  the  measure  was  already  full  when  Louis 
XV  was  dragging  out  the  remains  of  a  wasted  life.    His 

29 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

successor,  a  good-natured  Roi  (V  Yvetot,  had  neither  the 
energy  to  fight  nor  the  intelligence  to  make  peace ;  for 
fifteen  years  he  left  unheeded  the  clamour  of  the  people 
for  bread,  let  alone  its  feeble  cry  for  liberty.  The  people 
were  crushed  by  taxes,  taxes  on  salt,  interprovincial 
customs  which  were  removed  too  late,  a  ten  per  cent 
income-tax  .  .  .  and  ten  times  more  if  the  collector 
could  wring  it  out;  everywhere  poverty  and  famine, 
everywhere  peculation  and  petty  tyranny  and,  to  make 
matters  worse,  a  privileged  class  of  nobles  and  clerics  on 
whom  no  taxes^were  levied  though  they  battened  on  the 
misery  of  the  race.  The  portents  were  unheeded ; 
Marie-Antoinette  continued  to  play  in  the  Trianon 
gardens,  indifferent  to  the  cry  of  the  rioters  demanding 
bread  .  .  .  and  then  the  storm  burst  and  the  rest  is 
history.  Can  any  one,  even  the  believer  in  the  divine 
right  of  kings,  deny  that  the  people,  goaded  to  madness 
by  their  sufferings,  must  be  held  blameless  for  their 
excesses?  They  killed  their  thousands  under  the 
guillotine :  was  it  too  great  a  price  to  exact  for  the 
pangs  of  their  fathers  who  had  been  starved  to  death, 
worked  to  death  by  the  million  ?  I  do  not  seek  to 
exculpate  Robespierre,  Danton,  St.  Just,  Couthon,  Marat 
or  any  other  protagonist  of  this  terrible  drama  :  all  I 
maintain  is  that  the  excesses  themselves  were  the 
normal  outcome  of  tyranny  and  of  the  treachery  of 
a  King  and  Queen  who  invoked  the  help  of  the  foreigner 
against  their  people. 

The  Revolution  was  paid  for  by  Reaction  :  that  again 
is  natural.  The  movement  had  been  so  violent  that  it 
had  got  ahead  of  its  supporters ;  slowly,  the  tide 
receded  and  every  change  brought  France  back  towards 
absolutism.     Never   would   this    have   gone   so    far   if 

30 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

Napoleon  had  not  flashed  across  the  horizon  hke  a 
meteor.  AbiHty  brought  him  from  obscurity  to  a 
governing  post ;  then,  alone  of  all  men,  he  saw  the 
direction  of  the  movement  and  availed  himself  of  it 
with  unparalleled  genius :  from  general  to  Directeur^ 
thence  to  Consul,  to  Consul  for  life  and  to  Emperor  were 
but  natural  steps  in  the  course  of  an  ambitious  and 
masterful  man.  France  worshipped  him,  being  still  in 
a  reactionary  mood  and  because  his  personality  made  a 
unique  appeal  to  her  people.  He  fell :  the  foreigner 
forced  a  Monarch,  Louis  XVIII,  upon  the  conquered. 
Slowly,  as  she  regained  her  powers,  France  stopped  on 
her  reactionary  path  and  began  to  retrace  her  steps  ; 
again  grievances  accumulated  and  again  the  voice  of 
democracy  began  to  make  itself  heard  ;  thus  was  pre- 
pared the  second  popular  revolution.  What  were 
its  causes  ?  Was  it  the  revolutionary  habit,  or  was 
it  once  more  the  result  of  profound  and  crying  griev- 
ances ? 

The  revolution  of  1830  was  due  to  the  reactionary 
tendencies  of  Charles  X,  to  the  fact  that,  ignoring  the 
lessons  of  history,  he  attempted  to  force  absolutism  on  a 
people  who  had  tasted  the  rich  wine  of  liberty.  It  was 
not  v/ithout  misgivings  that  Louis  XVIII,  a  man  of 
intelligence  and  moderation,  a  man  of  the  world,  con- 
tem.plated  his  accession  to  the  throne;  no  sooner  was 
Charles  X  crowned  than  he  at  once  indulged  in  un- 
popular appointments,  by  ignoring  Parliament  and 
adopting  in  public  the  manner  of  an  Oriental  potentate. 
Steadily  the  hatred  of  the  people  developed.  This 
hatred  was  levelled  at  the  man  and  extended  to  the 
system;  in  1829  the  bigoted  and  superstitious  King 
accentuated  his  attitude  and  the  unrest  grew  in  propor- 

31 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

tion.  Charles  X  was  a  weak  man  and,  early  in  1830, 
fearing  the  growing  discontent,  he  felt  drawn  towards 
violence,  the  usual  weapon  of  the  weak  ;  no  man  is 
more  brutal  than  a  frightened  weakling — the  coward  is 
a  good  fighter  once  he  is  run  to  earth.  In  July  1830 
Charles  X  promulgated  the  famous  decrees  that  were  to 
prove  his  undoing  and  against  which  M.  Thiers  pro- 
tested in  vain.  At  one  blow,  he  dissolved  the  Parlia- 
ment the  country  had  just  elected,  proclaimed  a 
restriction  of  the  franchise  and  withdrew  the  liberty  of 
the  Press.  The  response  was  immediate :  the  towns  in 
nearly  every  part  of  the  country  rose  as  one  man ;  for  a 
moment  the  King  thought  of  fighting,  then,  losing 
courage,  decided  to  abdicate.^ 

Such,  in  a  few  words,  is  the  history  of  the  July  Revo- 
lution. Again  I  ask :  Were  not  the  French  people 
justified  in  rising?  is  it  not  natural  that  they  should 
rise  against  such  tyranny?  The  revolutionary  spirit 
was  not  the  root  cause  of  the  upheaval ;  true,  France 
had  behind  her  a  tradition  of  revolution,  for  men  were 
still  living  who  had  seen  the  guillotine  at  work.  But 
this  only  gave  them  the  courage  to  rise,  not  the  desire 
to  do  so.  The  French  saw  a  tyrant  over  them  and  they 
dethroned  him  ;  a  notable  proof  of  this  is  that  Mon- 
archy itself  did  not  succumb,  for  Parliament  selected  a 
kinsman  of  Charles  X  as  king  of  the  French  (no  longer 
"King  of  France"),  who  peacefully  ascended  the  throne 
under  the  name  of  Louis-Philippe  I.  How  he  main- 
tained his  position  for  eighteen  years  is  a  mystery ; 
perhaps  by  sheer  simplicity  and  ignorant  good  nature. 
His    incapacity   in   the    selection    of    counsellors   was 

^  This  chapter  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  chapter  dealing 
with  the  evolution  of  the  Constitution  ("  The  Constitution"). 

32 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

counterbalanced  by  the  continual  strife  of  parties  ; 
he  had  not  the  craft  to  divide  et  ijupera,  but  he  kept 
his  balance  skilfully  enough  among  conflicting  ele- 
ments. 

Louis-Philippe  was  a  democratic  king  and  the  cele- 
brated cartoon  that  turned  his  face  into  a  pear  did  not 
lessen  his  popularity,  though  it  was  tinged  with  good- 
humoured  contempt.  The  King  fell  in  great  part 
because  his  kingdom  was  mismanaged ;  his  foreign 
policy  was  poor,  in  so  far  as  it  brought  France  in  con- 
flict with  Great  Britain,  which  course,  so  history  tells  us, 
has  rarely  profited  any  nation  ;  his  home  policy  resulted 
in  ever-growing  poverty.  The  analysis  of  the  state  of 
things  at  the  time  does  not  reveal  any  very  salient  facts. 
Everything  was  wrong :  crops  were  bad,  business  bad 
and  the  stock-markets  nervous.  The  measures  intro- 
duced by  the  Government  did  not  appear  to  mend 
matters  much,  so  that  unrest  began  very  soon  after 
Louis-Philippe's  accession  and,  without  growing  to  an 
alarming  extent,  persisted  to  the  last  day  of  his  reign. 
At  last  the  malcontents  came  out  into  the  open  and 
fiery  political  speeches  began  to  make  themselves 
heard  .  .  .  again  the  mediocre  man  sought  to  break  the 
power  of  the  people  and  forbade  a  political  banquet, 
which  was  to  be  held  in  Paris.  Immediately,  the  town 
rose,  the  troops  turned  against  the  ruler  who,  alone  and 
helpless,  abdicated  after  a  feeble  struggle.  Thus  the 
Revolution  of  1848  installed  the  Second  Republic, 
because  the  people  were  weary  of  kings  and  their 
favourites  and  of  the  abuses  on  which  they  fattened. 

France  had  one  more  step  to  make  before  she 
emerged  into  democracy ;  she  had  to  come  under  the 
influence  of  a  clever  and  interesting  personality,  Prince 

D  33 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Louis-Napoleon.  He  had  something  of  the  width  of 
outlook  of  his  great  ancestor  ;  his  career  was  a  series  of 
masterful  assertions  backed  by  daring.  President,  Presi- 
dent for  life,  Emperor  in  virtue  of  a  referendum  which 
Erckman-Chatrian  alleges  to  have  been  gerrymandered, 
within  four  years  of  the  fall  of  Louis-Philippe,  Napo- 
leon III  was  installed  at  the  Tuileries  as  hereditary 
Emperor  of  the  French.  He  was  not  without  parts  or 
generosity ;  indeed,  his  quixotism  led  him  into  conflict 
with  every  windmill  within  his  sight.  His  war  with 
Austria,  above  all,  his  extraordinary  attempt  to  establish 
an  empire  in  Mexico,  so  ably  foiled  by  President  Diaz, 
did  not  contribute  to  making  him  unpopular ;  he  had 
the  quality  that  the  French  call  panache,  an  untranslat- 
able word  well  expressed  by  the  effect  of  heavy  plumes 
on  a  burnished  helmet.  Moreover,  he  avoided  the 
temptation  which  had  played  Louis-Philippe  so  sorry  a 
turn,  and  began  with  Great  Britain  a  commercial  friend- 
ship from  which  France  only  departed,  much  to  her 
disadvantage,  in  1892.  Though  the  wars  were  costly 
and  taxes  heavy  enough,  business  was  good ;  the  wars 
were  hardly  popular,  but  the  French,  though  peaceable, 
like  a  good  fight :  it  is  exciting  and  they  often  do  well 
at  the  great  game.  But  the  Emperor  and  his  consort 
never  gained  the  liking  of  the  people,  who  were  surfeited 
with  Monarchs  and  castes  and  did  not  favour  the  waste- 
fulness of  courts.  Moreover,  the  old  Republicans  of 
1848  remained  bitter  enemies  of  the  regime  and  made 
their  influence  felt  at  every  opportunity  ;  little  by  little, 
the  country  turned  against  the  ruler,  in  great  part 
because  it  had  a  natural  dislike  for  personal  rule.  Then 
came  the  terrible  year ;  Napoleon  was  hardly  respon- 
sible for  the  great  war  which  was  forced  upon  him  by 

34 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

the  iron  will  of  Bismarck,  who  had  just  broken  the 
power  of  Denmark  and  of  Austria  and  who  felt  that 
France  was  the  strong  enemy  whose  pride  he  must 
lower.  Napoleon  III  knew  this  well  and,  on  the  most 
elementary  grounds  of  policy,  he  could  not  allow  a 
Hohenzollern  to  reign  in  Madrid  if  a  Hohenzollern 
reigned  in  Berlin.  The  war  came.  It  was  short  and 
sharp ;  defeat  after  defeat  overwhelmed  the  eagles ;  on 
September  2nd  and  3rd  came  the  crowning  disaster, 
Sedan,  the  army  routed,  the  Emperor  a  prisoner. 

The  revolution  was  immediate  and  practically  unre- 
sisted :  thus  the  Third  Republic,  great  and  glorious  as 
it  is  to-day,  came  into  being  when  all  was  dark,  when 
all  seemed  lost.  It  survived  the  most  terrible  war  of 
the  century ;  it  survived  the  financial  disasters  that 
followed  it ;  it  was  the  only  cure.  For  the  third  time, 
the  French  people  wiped  out  a  system  that  was  rotten 
and  registered  a  vow  that  never  again  should  it  be 
implanted  in  the  land.  Nearly  forty  years  of  peace 
and  prosperity  show  that,  at  last,  France  has  found  a 
haven  of  political  rest ;  in  her  righteous  wrath  she  rose 
and,  on  the  smoking  ruins  of  '71,  she  has  erected  the 
great  edifice  that  we  know  to-day,  stable  and  har- 
monious in  all  its  parts. 

This  short  sketch  of  revolutionary  history  may  or 
may  not  have  convinced  the  reader  that  the  nation  has 
never  risen  for  the  love  of  rioting ;  should  he  need 
further  details,  text-books  are  not  lacking,  but  no 
amount  of  information  can  detract  from  the  value  of 
the  facts  I  have  adduced.  The  French  have  not  got 
the  revolutionary  spirit,  but  they  are  not  afraid  of 
revolution  ;  they  know  that  the  ordeal  by  fire  is  one 
that  a  regime  must  go  through  if  it  is  worth  adopting ; 

35 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

if  fire  and  the  sword  must  be  used,  the  French  do  not 
shrink  from  the  necessity ;  they  are  impatient  and  will 
not  let  evolution  do  in  a  century  what  the  gun  can  do  in 
a  night. 

Revolutions  have  been  more  frequent  in  France  than 
in  Great  Britain ;  indeed,  since  the  final  fall  of  the 
Stuarts,  no  revolution  has  honoured  British  history. 
How  the  Great  Revolution  ever  came  about,  I  can 
hardly  understand,  unless  the  British  have  changed  a 
great  deal.  No  man  living  can  picture  the  conditions 
under  which  the  people  lived  in  Stuart  times,  but  it  is 
next  to  incredible  that  their  poverty  can  have  been 
greater  than  is  that  of  the  masses  at  the  present  time. 
A  religious  whirlwind  swept  the  land  and  a  great  leader 
appeared  ;  without  Puritanism  and  without  Cromwell, 
there  would  have  been  no  revolution ;  religious  en- 
thusiasm and  the  personal  magnetism  of  the  greatest 
figure  in  British  history  took  the  place  of  popular 
indignation.  Where  Cromwell  led,  others  followed : 
without  him,  perhaps  none  would  have  stirred. 

An  occasional  rising  is  all  that  Great  Britain  knows ; 
even  the  most  violent,  such  as  the  Bristol  Riots,  before 
the  Reform  Act,  1832,  or  the  Bread  Riots,  do  not  par- 
take of  the  wholesale  and  sweeping  character  of  French 
political  movements.  The  British  lack  solidarity  and 
do  not  readily  kick  against  the  pricks ;  provided  that 
their  personal  liberty  be  not  endangered,  they  appear  to 
care  little  for  national  freedom.  I  do  not  suggest  that 
there  are,  at  the  present  day,  grounds  for  a  bloody 
revolution,  but  I  cannot  help  noting  that  all  political 
progress  in  Great  Britain  has  been  made  at  a  slow  rate 
in  the  face  of  great  opposition  and  that  it  has  been  very 
small ;  popular  Bills  have  had  to  be  brought  in  time 

36 


The  Revolutionary  Spirit 

after  time  before  they  were  passed,  even  in  a  modified 
form.  Sometimes  they  have  been  rejected  and  then  the 
clamour  of  the  people  has  soon  died  away. 

The  British  do  not  understand  the  art  of  revolution- 
making  ;  they  lack  political  energy.  For  instance,  the 
Education  Bill,  1906,  may  have  been  a  good  Bill  or  a 
bad  one,  but  it  was  apparently  brought  forward  on 
behalf  of  the  majority  of  the  people.  It  is  idle  to 
assert  that  which  cannot  be  checked,  but  it  is  possible 
that,  in  France,  its  rejection  by  a  king  or  a  house  of  peers 
would  have  brought  about  a  revolution.  Either  the 
majority  or  an  energetic  minority  would  have  risen  in 
arms  and  there  would  have  been  an  end  to  such  a  body 
as  the  House  of  Lords  at  which  the  authors  of  the  Bill 
now  impotently  rail.  I  do  not  say  that  this  is  either 
desirable  or  undesirable,  but  history  provides  inferential 
evidence  that  the  French  would  not  have  tolerated  such 
treatment. 

We  must  not  forget  that  the  French  are  a  hot-blooded 
race,  which  must  serve  to  explain  their  energy  and 
excuse  their  excesses.  Revolution  is  easiest  when  the 
sun  shines  (as  it  does  in  South  America)  and  men's 
minds  are  alert ;  the  British  race  is  stolid,  whereas  the 
French  are  mercurial ;  thus  the  latter  have  always  been 
ready  when  the  time  to  act  came.  They  have  not  got 
the  revolutionary  spirit,  but  they  have  got  an  aptitude 
for  revolution,  not  only  the  faculty  of  knowing  that  they 
suffer  as  a  race,  but  also  from  what  evils  they  suffer  and 
the  means  that  must  be  adopted  if  the  equilibrium 
jeopardised  by  the  arrogance  of  a  man  or  a  class  is  to 
be  safeguarded. 


37 


CHAPTER   III 
THE   REPUBLIC 

THERE  are  few  members  of  civilised  nations,  what- 
ever be  the  party  to  which  they  may  owe  al- 
legiance, who  if  pressed  would  not  confess  themselves 
Republicans ;  we  are  not  all  Socialists  but  we  are 
practically  all  Republicans,  because  the  former  creed 
demands  of  us  that  we  shall  control  our  individuality, 
whereas  the  latter  exalts  it  to  a  divine  degree.  Thus, 
the  essential  principles  of  Republicanism  appeal  to  all 
men,  to  most  of  them  subtly,  so  subtly  that  they  awake 
to  the  consciousness  of  their  opinion  only  when  their 
liberty  is  threatened,  and  even  then  they  often  fear  to 
proclaim  the  truth  to  themselves.  Thus  we  have 
Republican  Royalists,  Republican  Imperialists,  some- 
times Republican  Socialists  ;  this  last  designation  is  no 
more  essentially  paradoxical  than  the  two  former.  For 
some  reason  inherent  in  the  nature  of  man,  we  cling  to 
forms  of  government  that  are  in  themselves  obsolete 
and  meaningless  and  practise  that  against  which  we 
preach.  The  weakness  of  all  absolutist  and  semi- 
absolutist  governments  lies  not  in  the  fact  that  they  are 
bad,  but  in  the  fact  that  they  are  out  of  date.  There  has 
been  a  time  when  a  benevolent  form  of  Socialism 
assembled  men  in  tribes  whose  energy  and  possessions 
were  grouped,  when  individual  property  was  practically 

38 


The  Republic 


non-existent ;  while  men  remained  unsophisticated, 
moderate  in  their  desires  and  truly  religious,  the  system 
worked  efficiently :  the  growth  of  property  and  still  more 
of  population  made  the  system  cumbrous  ;  men  ceased 
to  be  fit  subjects  for  its  application,  and  it  died  out.  It 
is  futile  to  hope  that  we  may  return  to  it,  not  because  it 
is  too  good  for  us  or  not  good  enough,  but  simply 
because  we  have  evolved  and  evolution  never  really  goes 
back,  though  it  may  appear  to  do  so.  At  the  present 
time  tribal  ownership  still  prevails  among  uncivilised 
races,  and  it  is  slowly  disappearing  as  these  races  rise  in 
the  human  scale,  a  sufficient  demonstration  of  the  above 
theory.  The  feudal  system  had  its  turn  and  did  ex- 
cellent work ;  in  lawless  days  it  proved  the  one  means 
of  social  salvation  and  kept  together  the  struggling  and 
ignorant  masses,  under  a  rule  hard,  it  is  true,  but 
necessary.  Again,  as  man  grew  more  enlightened,  the 
feudal  system  became  obsolete  and  died  out,  simply 
because  it  was  no  longer  needed,  and  so  wasted  away 
like  an  atrophied  limb  ;  in  countries  that  have  not 
reached  the  pitch  of  Western  civilisation,  feudalism  is 
still  doing  its  work  but  is  slowly  losing  ground  as  men 
gain  in  learning  and  in  sense  of  responsibility.  The 
feudal  system  was  superseded  by  Monarchy  pure  and 
simple  in  various  and  more  or  less  crude  forms  ;  it  is 
necessary  to  draw  a  distinction  between  absolutism  and 
constitutional  Monarchy,  though  they  are  of  the  same 
nature.  Both  proceed  from  the  need  felt  by  new-born 
nations  of  a  leader  strong  enough  to  restrain  the  warring 
elements,  and  for  that  reason  they  give  him  hereditary 
rank  and  rights ;  his  position  being  secured  the  leader 
can  impose  his  will  upon  all  men  and  work  for  the 
good  of  the  greater  number  with  a  due  regard  for  the 

39 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
minority.  Again,  sometimes  because  the  leader  abused 
his  position,  but  always  in  the  course  of  natural  evo- 
lution, the  might  of  absolutism  has  been  curbed  in  most 
civilised  countries  ;  men  felt  that  they  no  longer  needed 
this  strong  restraining  hand  and  they  limited  its  power 
by  imposing  a  constitution  upon  the  princely  family 
whom  they  retained  at  their  head. 

Here  the  ways  part  :  constitutional  Monarchy  being 
practically  identical  in  its  nature  (though  not  in  its 
results)  with  a  Republican  system,  civilised  races  should 
not  be  divided  into  those  that  are  still  in  Monarchic 
tutelage  and  those  that  have  evolved  into  Republican 
freedom.  The  Republic  as  a  system  of  government  is 
an  accident ;  it  is  the  fruit  of  a  violent  reaction  or  the 
result  of  a  fact ;  it  is  not  the  crowning  height  to  which 
a  people  starting  from  savagery  must  inevitably  attain. 
It  is  easy  to  conceive  of  a  liberty-loving  Monarchy  and 
a  tyrannous  Republican  system,  though  this  is  not  likely 
to  happen  for  reasons  apart  from  the  system  itself. 
The  American  Republic  proceeded  from  the  dictatorial 
interference  of  the  mother  country  in  colonial  affairs ; 
the  French  Republic  sprang  from  a  short-lived  consti- 
tutional Monarchy.  The  case  of  the  United  States 
cannot  be  admitted  as  normal  because,  once  the  country 
had  thrown  off  the  British  yoke,  it  had  no  alternative 
but  a  republic ;  France  on  the  other  hand  is  a  type. 

When,  in  1789,  the  might  of  the  people  made  itself 
felt,  in  spite  of  the  violence  of  the  upheaval  Monarchy 
survived  under  a  constitutional  system  ;  whether  or  not 
it  would  have  lived  through  the  storm  born  of  centuries 
of  suffering  is  unknown,  for  the  King  precipitated  his 
fall  by  flight,  and  his  case  was  not  improved  by  the 
action  of  inimical  foreign  monarchies. 

40 


The  Republic 


The  Republic  and  the  Monarchy  are  different  systems 
of  government  and  nothing  can  bring  them  into  line  ; 
Republicanism  and  Monarchism  can,  however,  be  similar 
in  practice.  I  say  "  can "  advisedly,  for  there  is  no 
reason  why  they  should  not,  but  in  fact  they  never  are  ; 
the  reason,  at  which  I  hinted  above,  is  that  Monarchy 
inevitably  fosters  a  peculiar  form  of  class  feeling.  This 
feeling  is  normal  and  practically  invincible  ;  whether  the 
castes  be  based  on  lineage,  on  knowledge  or  on  money 
there  is  a  natural  tendency  to  form  them  ;  class  feeling 
is  a  cramping  and  detestable  thing,  but  if  we  must 
submit  to  it,  let  it  be  to  the  noblest  form.  The  class 
system  based  on  intellectual  value  is  not  ideal  as  it  gives 
men  undue  advantage  if  they  are  born  with  great  gifts, 
but  it  is  fair  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  community 
that  benefits  by  their  ability ;  the  plutocratic  classi- 
fication stands  on  a  far  lower  scale,  for  money  is  not 
only  gained  by  the  able  or  the  honest,  but  it  has  the 
redeeming  point  that  it  is  practically  accessible  to  all 
men  ;  the  classing  of  men  according  to  lineage  is  the 
third  system  and  the  most  unsatisfactory.  We  can 
respect  a  man  because  he  is  learned  ;  we  can  respect  him 
because  he  is  rich  if  we  know  him  to  be  honest ;  we 
cannot  respect  him  because  a  remote  ancestor  has  left 
him  renown  and  a  resounding  name.  Yet  it  is  this  very 
system  that  Monarchy  adopts  and  for  a  very  simple 
reason  ;  the  prince  is  a  star  of  the  first  magnitude  and 
must  surround  himself  with  men  who  are  worthy  of 
him ;  he  can  choose  among  the  intellectually  great, 
when  they  deign  to  be  chosen,  but  it  is  far  easier  to 
select  among  the  descendants  of  men  who  were 
associated  with  the  prince's  ancestors,  among  men  who 
have  traditions  of  unswerving  personal  loyalty.     More- 

41 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

over,  the  omnipotent  prince  has  the  right  to  dispense 
favours  ;  the  most  prized  by  many  men  are  titles  and 
orders  and  those  offices  that  yield  no  profit  but  mark 
out  a  man  from  among  his  fellows ;  as  these  favours  cost 
the  prince  nothing  and  are  much  appreciated,  he  dis- 
tributes them  in  consideration  of  personal  services  and 
thus  gathers  round  him  an  aristocratic  class  that  preys 
on  the  governing  body  and  basks  in  the  sunshine  of  the 
prince's  favour. 

It  is  the  aristocracy  alone  that  differentiates  a 
Republic  from  the  most  enlightened  of  constitutional 
Monarchies  ;  in  the  former  all  classes  are  accessible  to 
all  men ;  in  the  latter  they  are  easily  entered  by  some 
men  but  with  difficulty  by  most.  Monarchy  perpetuates 
in  fact  that  which  it  may  repudiate  in  name  ;  a  king  and 
a  court  may  govern  a  country  successfully,  but  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  that  they  can  govern  it  with  the 
goodwill  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  masses.  vThe 
Republican  ideal  is  of  all  the  loftiest ;  based  on  individ- 
ualism and  on  the  recognition  of  the  equality  of  the 
rights  of  men,  it  soars  towards  the  lofty  heights  of 
perfect  government.  A  Republic  may  diverge  from  its 
path  but  the  ideal  remains  unchanged  ;  equal  oppor- 
tunities of  education,  of  fortune,  of  happiness  for  all 
men  ;  equal  rewards ;  equal  punishments.  Crown  the 
edifice  with  freedom  ;  endow  the  public  powers  with 
wisdom  and  mercy,  with  energy  and  with  sensibility,  and 
the  Republican  system  can  rise  to  heights  that  no  class- 
governed  country  can  hope  to  reach. 

That  is  the  great  ideal  which  emerged  in  France  from 
the  seas  of  blood  of  La  Terreur,  pure  and  undefiled  as 
Venus  from  the  waves  ;  no  nobler  because  simpler  words 
were  ever  spoken  than  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of 

42 


The  Republic 


Man,  and  it  is  because  they  know  this  that  the  French 
love  the  Republic  with  something  of  personal  passion, 
like  a  great  iDeneficent  goddess  of  strength  and  of  peace. 
They  are  conscious  of  the  gifts  that  the  Republic  has 
showered  upon  them,  liberty,  equality,  fraternity,  and 
they  are  deeply  attached  to  this  incorporeal  mistress ; 
the  very  name  "  Marianne  "  of  the  austere  and  beautiful 
head  that  figures  the  Republic  is  tender ;  the  symbol  is 
as  different  in  spirit  from  the  British  lion  as  it  is  from 
the  double  -  headed  eagle  or  the  Chinese  dragon. 
Marianne  is  not  of  the  brutal  conquerors  ;  she  is  strong 
but  pacific,  justice -loving  and  generous;  look  upon 
Roty's  beautiful  coin,  showing  the  slim  female  figure 
sowing  the  good  grain  broadcast  over  the  sweeping 
fields  of  the  world,  over  the  fields  already  kissed  by  the 
first  rays  of  the  distant  rising  sun  :  how  much  poetry 
and  strength  are  concentrated  in  this  tiny  picture ! 
and  that  is  France  and  still  more  the  Republic,  as 
understood  by  a  true  Frenchman. 

The  French  have  tried  all  systems  of  government, 
from  anarchy  to  dictature ;  they  have  tried  them  again 
and  again  and  all  but  the  Republican  system  have  been 
found  wanting.  Kings  and  their  polished  swarms  of 
courtiers,  Emperors  and  their  rough  soldiery,  Republics 
and  semi-Republics  have  been  marshalled  before  the 
court  of  public  opinion  and  all  but  the  Republic  have 
been  dismissed  ;  it  has  on  the  people  a  grip  that  is  not 
likely  to  relax.  Above  all  things  the  French  know  that 
their  most  precious  possessions  are  bound  up  in  the 
Republic.  The  latter's  soul  is  the  soul  of  the  race :  if 
the  Republic  were  to  fall,  France  would  sink  in  the 
social  scale.  But  it  will  not  fall ;  the  tricolour  is  nailed 
to  the  mast  and  it  is  not  likely  to  make  way  either  for 
the  eagles  or  for  the  lilies. 

43 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

If  the  Republic  has  acquired  such  a  hold  over  the 
hearts  and  passions  of  the  people,  it  must  be  because 
there  is  in  it  something  elusive  and  yet  noble  that  the 
people  can  pin  their  faith  to ;  abstract  systems  do  not 
fascinate  the  masses  to  any  such  degree  as  does  a  popu- 
lar prince.  The  very  insolence  of  a  ruler  is  looked  upon 
as  strength ;  his  equity  passes  for  clemency ;  the  pay- 
ment of  his  debts  is  accounted  generosity.  An  abstract 
system  on  the  other  hand  must  needs  be  of  a  noble 
order  if  it  is  to  dominate  the  people  and  win  their  love  : 
it  rarely  makes  itself  felt  except  to  punish  and  to  forbid, 
so  that  unless  it  have  a  great  soul  it  cannot  hope  to  live 
in  the  heart  of  the  nation.  The  Republican  system  in 
general  and  the  French  Republic  in  particular  can  alone 
hope  to  triumph  ;  in  the  case  of  France,  the  system  is 
based  upon  a  document  so  noble,  simple  and  compre- 
hensive, that  no  man  who  will  read  it  in  an  unpre- 
judiced spirit  can  deny  its  beauty  and  its  truth,  I  refer 
to  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  the 
Citizen. 

The  Declaration  was  laid  down  by  the  first  Republi- 
can parliament  between  the  20th  and  the  26th  day  of 
August,  1789.  The  spirit  that  gave  birth  to  the  epoch- 
making  document  was  illumined  by  the  fires  of  the 
Bastille,  consecrated  by  a  common  oath  to  achieve  the 
freedom  of  the  land  and  exalted  by  the  suppression  of 
privilege.  The  race  was  pregnant  with  great  deeds ; 
the  coming  upheaval  had  not  yet  begun,  but  passionate 
oratory  had  raised  the  ideals  of  the  people  to  an  in- 
tolerable pitch.  In  this  extraordinary  atmosphere, 
effulgent  and  electric,  the  first  parliament  brought  into 
the  world  this  most  enduring  witness  of  the  greatness 
of  man, 

44 


The  Republic 


DECLARATION   OF  THE  RIGHTS  OF 
MAN   AND   OF  THE   CITIZEN 

The  elect  of  the  French  people,  constituted 
as  a  National  Assembly,  consider  that  ig- 
norance, obliviousness,  or  contempt  of  the 
rights  of  man  are  the  sole  causes  of  public 
misfortune  and  of  corrupt  government ; 
they  have  resolved  to  state  in  a  solemn 
Declaration  the  natural,  inalienable  and 
sacred  rights  of  man,  so  that  this  Declara- 
tion be  ever  present  before  all  members  of 
the  social  body  and  remind  them  for  ever 
of  their  duties  and  of  their  rights  ;  so  that 
the  exercise  of  legislative  and  executive 
power  may  be  compared  at  any  time  with 
the  object  of  political  institutions  and  thus 
increase  their  good  repute ;  so  that  the 
demands  of  citizens  may  henceforth  be 
founded  on  simple  and  irrefutable  princi- 
ples and  promote  the  upholding  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  happiness  of  all  men. 
In  consequence  thereof  the  National 
Assembly  acknowledges  and  proclaims,  be- 
fore and  under  the  auspices  of  the  Supreme 

45 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Being,  the  following  rights  of  man  and  of 
the  citizen  : 

Article  i.  All  men  are  born  and  remain 
free  and  have  equal  rights.  Social  distinc- 
tions can  proceed  only  from  services  ren- 
dered to  the  community. 

Article  2.  The  object  of  all  political 
groupings  is  the  preservation  of  the  natural, 
inalienable  and  sacred  rights  of  man. 
These  rights  are  liberty,  property,  security 
and  the  right  to  resist  oppression. 

Article  3.  The  principle  of  sovereign 
power  is  vested  essentially  in  the  nation. 
No  body,  no  man,  may  exercise  any  author- 
ity not  emanating  expressly  from  the  latter. 

Article  4.  Liberty  is  the  doing  of  all 
things  not  hurtful  to  other  men  :  thus  the 
exercise  of  the  natural  rights  of  man  has 
no  bounds  beyond  those  which  secure  for 
other  members  of  Society  the  enjoyment 
of  the  same  rights.  The  Law  alone  can 
establish  these  bounds. 

Article  5.  The  Law  can  forbid  none 
but  those  deeds  which  endanger  Society. 
That  which  the  Law  does  not  forbid  may 
by  no  man  be  hindered  and  no  man  may  be 

46 


The  Republic 

made  to  do  that  which  the  Law  does  not 
enjoin  upon  him. 

Article  6.  The  Law  is  the  expression 
of  the  common  will.  All  citizens  have  the 
right  to  take  part  in  its  making,  either 
personally  or  through  their  representatives. 
The  Law  whether  it  punish  or  reward  must 
be  the  same  for  all  men.  All  citizens,  being 
equal  in  its  eyes,  are  equally  eligible  for  all 
honours,  functions  and  public  duties, accord- 
ing to  their  ability,  no  other  distinction 
than  their  virtues  or  their  natural  gifts 
being  admissible. 

Article  7.  No  man  may  be  accused, 
arrested  or  imprisoned  save  in  those  cases 
that  the  Law  specifies  and  in  conformity 
with  the  procedure  laid  down  by  it.  Those 
men  who  solicit,  forward  or  execute  arbi- 
trary commands  must  be  punished  ;  but  any 
citizen  attached  or  arrested  in  virtue  of  the 
Law  must  at  once  submit ;  should  he  resist, 
he  becomes  guilty. 

Article  8.  The  Law  may  establish  none 
but  strictly  and  evidently  necessary  penal- 
ties and  no  man  shall  be  punished  except 
in  virtue  of  a  law  established  and  promul- 

47 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

gated  before  the  committing  of  the  crime, 
provided  that  the  Law  shall  be  legally 
applied. 

Article  g.  As  a  man  is  deemed  innocent 
until  he  shall  have  been  declared  guilty, 
should  it  be  necessary  to  arrest  him  no 
rigour  that  is  not  essential  for  the  securing 
of  his  person  shall  be  tolerated  by  the  Law. 

Article  lo.  No  man  may  be  persecuted 
on  account  of  the  views,  religious  or  other, 
that  he  may  harbour,  provided  that  their  up- 
holding do  not  disturb  public  order  as 
established  by  the  Law. 

Article  1 1 .  The  unfettered  exchange  of 
thoughts  and  opinions  is  one  of  the  most 
precious  rights  of  man  :  any  citizen  may 
therefore  say,  write,  or  print  that  which  he 
may  think  fit,  and  he  shall  be  responsible 
for  the  abuse  of  his  liberty  in  such  cases  as 
the  Law  may  determine. 

Article  12.  The  safeguarding  of  the 
rights  of  man  and  of  the  citizen  necessitates 
the  maintenance  of  public  forces :  these 
forces  are  therefore  established  for  the  ad- 
vantage of  all  men  and  not  for  the  personal 
use  of  those  to  whom  they  are  entrusted. 


The  Republic 

Article  13.  So  that  the  public  forces 
may  be  maintained  and  administrative  ex- 
penses defrayed  a  common  contribution 
must  be  levied.  It  must  be  equally  dis- 
tributed among  the  citizens  in  proportion  to 
their  capacity  to  pay  it. 

Article  14.  All  citizens  have  the  right, 
either  personally  or  by  proxy,  to  ascertain  the 
necessity  of  public  contributions,  to  assent 
freely  to  their  imposition,  to  trace  the  use 
that  may  be  made  of  them,  to  investigate 
their  distribution,  their  incidence,  their 
collection  and  the  period  during  which  they 
are  to  be  collected. 

Article  15.  Society  may  demand  from 
any  official  an  account  of  his  administration. 

Article  16.  Any  Society  in  which  the 
preservation  of  rights  is  not  ensured,  and 
powers  not  distinctly  defined,  possesses  no 
Constitution. 

Article  17.  Property  being  an  inviolable 
and  sacred  right,  no  man  may  be  deprived 
of  it,  unless  public  interest  demand  it 
evidfently  and  according  to  the  Law,  pro- 
vided moreover  that  a  fair  indemnity  be 
first  paid  to  him. 

E  49 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

In  these  few  hundred  words  the  National  Assembly 
has  condensed  all  that  is  essential  to  the  elementary 
happiness  of  man  ;  for  no  man  can  be  happy  unless  he 
be  free,  and  no  man  is  truly  free  who  does  not  possess 
and  exercise  his  rights  to  free  thought,  free  speech,  free 
actions.  Boldly,  without  rhetoric,  in  words  which  owe 
their  impressiveness  to  their  simple  directness,  the  first 
Republican  parliament  lays  down  normal  principles  of 
government  and  indicates  the  lines  on  which  it  must  be 
conducted  if  it  is  to  lead  the  citizens  to  prosperity  and 
power. 

The  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  was  necessary 
in  a  day  when  men  coming  at  last  into  their  own  were 
likely  to  forget  the  rights  of  the  individual.  For  a 
moment,  during  the  bloody  days  of  '93,  its  simple 
eloquence  was  forgotten,  but  its  principles  remained 
untouched  and  undisputed  and  are  the  foundation  of  all 
the  constitutions  that  France  has  proclaimed,  from  the 
first  to  the  last.  Its  inspiration  was,  however,  foreign  ; 
it  is  distinctly  traceable  to  the  famous  North  American 
Declaration  of  July  1776.  This  is  a  longer  and  more 
wordy  document  which  cloaks  under  long  and  involved 
sentences  the  terse  pronouncements  of  the  declaration 
on  which  it  is  itself  based,  that  of  the  State  of  Virginia 
on  the  first  of  June  of  the  same  year.  In  the  Virginian 
and  the  French  declarations  we  find  practical  identity  of 
views ;  each  proclaims  principles  that  the  other  has  left 
aside,  but  the  chief  points  as  regards  liberty  and  equality 
are  common  to  both.  As  the  American  Declaration  pre- 
ceded the  French  by  some  thirteen  years,  and  as  its 
contents  were  certainly  known  to  the  educated  classes 
of  France,  this  singularly  close  likeness  forces  us  to 
infer  that  it  served  as  a  model  and  as  a  guide ;  I  do  not 

50 


The  Republic 


seek  to  decry  the  French  Declaration,  for  no  originality 
is  needed  to  describe  that  which  we  all  feel  in  our  hearts, 
but  I  wish  to  trace  the  descent  of  the  great  document 
and  to  make  clear  by  comparison  with  the  basis  of  the 
only  other  great  Republic,  that  the  same  principles  are 
common  and  essential  to  both.  Indeed,  it  appears 
easier  to  proclaim  for  oneself  these  great  and  ever- 
lasting truths  than  to  follow  the  lead  of  an  alien  race  in 
rebellion  against  the  established  order  of  things.  To 
raise  on  high  the  standard  of  freedom  induces  in  man  a 
holy  feeling  of  exaltation  :  as  he  soars  towards  liberty 
he  grows  nearer  to  God,  whereas  to  follow  other  men, 
who  have  drained  the  cup  already,  may  be  a  sterile  and 
thankless  task  ;  for  that  reason,  let  us  pay  tribute  to  the 
radiant  idealism  of  those  eighteenth-century  dreamers 
who  produced  a  document  which  marks  an  epoch  in 
the  history  of  man. 

Setting  aside  for  the  nonce  the  ancestry  of  the  De- 
claration, we  are  induced  to  examine  it  more  thoroughly ; 
at  first  sight  our  impression  is  that  volumes  might  be 
written  round  it,  as  every  one  of  its  seventeen  articles 
could  be  made  the  basis  of  a  chapter,  some  of  many 
chapters.  Every  proposition  of  philosophy,  every  tenet 
of  morality  was  cast  into  the  melting  pot  to  produce 
the  Declaration  ;  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  articles 
would  therefore  embrace  the  entire  range  of  abstract 
thought.  On  the  other  hand,  when  we  consider  these 
articles,  so  lucid,  so  comprehensive,  we  feel  how  un- 
necessary comment  is,  and  that  the  document,  like  all 
elementary  truths,  can  stand  alone  and  be  understood  of 
all  men.  Without  attempting  to  steer  a  middle  course 
between  these  two  alternatives,  let  us  however  note  a 
few  salient  points. 

59 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

The  first  one  is  the  stress  laid  on  the  right  of  pro- 
perty j  the  Declaration  assumes  that  all  wealth  then 
held  is  legitimate  and,  in  any  case,  a  sort  of  plenary 
amnesty  is  proclaimed  and  property  legalised  in  the 
eyes  of  the  State.  The  importance  of  this  point  lies  in 
the  modern  development  of  Socialism ;  the  Declaration 
has  in  view  individual  property  and  knows  nothing  of 
State  ownership ;  it  leaves  a  loophole  for  compulsory 
purchase,  but  between  that  and  Carl  Marxism  there  is 
an  abyss.  I  do  not  seek  to  take  sides  on  the  question, 
but  I  wish  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  Republicanism 
hereby  marks  its  rooted  difference  from  Socialism  ;  it 
is  true  that  Liberals  are  Radicals  in  embryo  and  that 
Radicals  are  potential  Republicans,  but  it  is  not  true 
that  Republicans  are  the  stock  from  which  Socialists 
will  grow.  The  reason  is  that  Republicanism  is  a 
political  system  which  influences  economics  indirectly, 
whereas  Socialism  is  an  economic  system  and  uses 
politics  to  make  its  power  felt.  A  Republican  may  be 
a  Socialist,  but  he  need  not  be  one ;  a  Socialist  cannot 
be  less  than  a  Republican,  but  he  need  not  be  one  at 
all.  Thus,  inferentially,  we  see  the  ancient  Republican 
law  take  up  an  emphatic  stand  in  favour  of  individual- 
ism ;  in  these  days  when  in  France  coalition  governments 
produce  bastard  combinations,  let  it  not  be  forgotten 
that  Mirabeau  and  Auguste  Comte  might  not  have  seen 
eye  to  eye. 

We  must  also  note  that  the  Declaration  incorporates 
the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  many  years  after  its  applica- 
tion in  Great  Britain  ;  its  inclusion  proceeded  mainly 
from  the  abuse  that  had  been  made  during  the  previous 
two  centuries  of  lettres  de  cachet  committing  men  to  the 
Bastille  without  a  hearing.    Thus  liberty  is  safeguarded, 

52 


The  Republic 


but  in  another  direction  the  Declaration  thinks  fit  to 
qualify  it ;  recent  events  more  fully  dealt  with  in  an- 
other chapter  lend  special  interest  to  Article  lO :  "  No 
man  may  be  persecuted  on  account  of  the  views, 
religious  or  other,  that  he  may  harbour,  provided  that 
their  upholding  do  not  disturb  public  order  as  established 
by  the  Law."  The  Republic  has  been  taxed  with 
tyrannous  and  brutal  interference  with  liberty  of  con- 
science and  charged  with  having  belied  its  traditions. 
The  indictment  falls  to  the  ground  when  we  read  again 
this  memorable  article :  the  Republic  concedes  to  all 
men  liberty  of  conscience,  provided  public  order  be  not 
disturbed  ;  liberty  is  conditional :  if  it  has  been  abused, 
as  is  alleged,  then  its  exercise  must  be  curtailed.  This 
question  is  specially  considered  in  another  chapter,  as 
aforesaid  ;  it  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  discuss  the 
matter  further,  but  it  must  be  accepted  that,  whether 
the  action  of  the  Republic  be  worthy  of  praise  or  of 
blame,  it  is  in  no  wise  unconstitutional,  nor  does  it  in  the 
least  derogate  from  the  sacred  principles  of  the  system. 
The  Declaration  is  in  no  wise  aimed  against  religious 
feeling ;  not  only  is  it  made  "  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Supreme  Being"  but  it  imposes  upon  the  liberty  of  the 
Press  and  freedom  of  speech  similar  restrictions,  such 
as  may  be  brought  into  being  by  the  responsibility  with 
which  men  are  endowed  and  by  the  threat  it  levels  at 
those  who  abuse  their  rights.  This  is  best  expressed 
in  Article  4,  which  leaves  a  wide  margin  for  the  most 
individualistic,  the  Anarchist  being  left  out  of  count, 
as  he  cannot  hope  to  find  a  place  in  the  orderly 
and  solid  scheme  on  which  the  modern  Republic  is 
based. 

The  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  is  the  mother 

53 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  the  French  Constitution,  as  are  its  principles,  in  a 
greater  or  lesser  degree,  of  all  human  constitutions. 
Its  traditions  have  never  died,  and  in  all  likelihood 
never  will ;  the  Declaration  was  accepted  by  King 
Louis  XVI  some  six  weeks  after  it  had  been  formulated, 
and  since  that  time  it  has  never  disappeared  from  French 
history ;  its  principles  were  extended  under  the  more 
extremist  sections  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  of 
the  Convention  that  successively  replaced  the  Consti- 
tuting Assembly ;  their  Radicalism  was  brought  out 
and  accentuated  under  the  auspices  of  the  Jacobins  but 
they  were  not  altered.  La  Tei'reur  even,  the  execution 
of  the  Girondins,  too  moderate  for  those  strenuous 
days,  are  not  in  flagrant  contradiction  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Declaration,  for  in  the  eyes  of  the  ex- 
tremists, honest  men,  though  ruthless,  those  that  we 
call  victims  were  traitors  to  the  State. 

We  must  leave  out  the  Napoleonic  period,  when  the 
principles  of  '89  were  continuously  flouted,  when  the 
ex-Republic  obeyed  without  a  word  the  strong  hand 
of  its  master ;  Napoleon  was  an  accident,  a  monster  in 
the  true  sense  of  the  word,  so  that  all  things  that 
happened  in  the  days  of  the  Eagle  form  a  separate 
chapter  in  history.  This  becomes  self-evident  when 
we  note  how,  immediately  after  the  fall  of  the  Empire, 
the  old  sans-culotte  principles  reassert  themselves; 
the  constitutions  by  means  of  which  Louis  XVIII, 
Charles  X,  Louis-Philippe  reigned  were  directly  inspired 
by  the  constitution  of  the  First  Republic,  hardly  modi- 
fied by  the  reintroduction  of  the  Monarchy  ;  so  much  so 
is  this  the  case  that  we  see  Charles  X  fall  because  he 
attempts  to  suppress  the  liberty  of  the  Press  (Article  11) 
and  dismisses  the  representatives  of  the  nation  (Article 

54 


The  Republic 


3) ;  likewise  the  immediate  if  not  root  cause  of  the 
downfall  of  Louis-Philippe  lies  in  his  attempting  to 
restrict  the  right  of  meeting,  which  is  also  to  be  in- 
ferred from  Article  11.  The  Declaration  of  the  Rights 
of  Man  is  in  French  political  history  the  stone  on 
which  whosoever  falleth  shall  be  broken. 

Again,  the  masterful  hand  of  an  Emperor  seizes 
France  in  its  grip  and  again  the  Declaration  falls  into 
abeyance,  though  not  to  the  same  degree  as  it  did 
under  the  great  Dictator ;  but  again  it  reasserts  itself, 
and  at  the  first  sign  of  weakness  of  the  Empire,  not 
six  weeks  after  the  first  shot  of  the  war  of  1870,  it 
rises  into  the  mind  of  the  people  and  the  Empire  is 
overturned.  Then  the  Declaration  is  once  more  and 
for  ever  established  as  head  of  the  corner  ;  it  pervades 
every  line  of  the  modern  constitution  of  France.  Never 
has  the  trust  of  France  wavered  when  the  great  mani- 
festo was  in  question ;  it  has  at  times  been  under  a 
cloud  but  never  for  very  long,  for  the  French  are  liberty- 
loving  and  truly  Republican.  They  have  paid  the  price 
of  political  knowledge  and  they  know  its  value  ;  they 
have  passed  through  the  fires  of  the  past  and  have 
emerged  purer  and  stronger  in  political  faith ;  a  Re- 
public does  not  necessarily  mean  happiness  for  all  men, 
but  it  does  mean  a  chance  of  happiness  for  all  men, 
and  of  all  things  in  the  world  that  are  worth  acquiring 
such  a  chance  is  the  most,  precious  ;  the  gift  of  oppor- 
tunity ensures  ever  fresh  courage ;  hope  does  not  spring 
eternal  in  the  human  breast,  but  it  may  if  a  man  feels 
that  the  world  is  his  to  conquer.  Thus  the  French 
have  learnt  at  last  that  which  the  northern  Americans 
knew  more  than  a  hundred  years  before,  that  there  is 
no  system  in  the  world  so  generous  or  so  fraught  with 

55 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

possibilities  of  universal  happiness  as  the  Republican, 
and  for  that  reason,  if  for  that  only,  they  cling  to  it 
with  a  devotion  that  no  personal  loyalty  to  a  sovereign 
can  ever  equal.  To  love  an  abstract  idea  is  a  loftier 
thing  than  to  love  a  man ;  true,  it  is  easier  to  risk  life 
for  one  who  has  become  as  part  of  oneself  than  to 
endanger  it  for  the  sake  of  the  unseen  ;  thus,  when 
abstract  worship  is  attained,  in  spite  of  all  obstacles,  it 
is  overwhelming  in  its  intensity. 

The  blood  that  drenched  the  land  during  La  Terreur 
was  not  wasted  ;  those  that  died,  whether  Royalist  or 
Republican,  died  well  ;  the  lives  of  Louis  and  his 
wife  were  sacrificed  on  the  same  altar  as  were  those  of 
Danton,  Condorcet,  Desmoulins,  Robespierre.  They 
died  for  different  ideals,  but  they  were  the  chosen 
sacrificial  victims  offered  up  to  the  Republican  ideal. 
So  much  has  the  land  suffered  and  so  much  has  it  given, 
so  many  wars  has  it  waged  and  so  many  storms  has  it 
weathered  that  it  has  grown  to  love  the  Republic  with 
a  holy  love.  The  political  feeling  that  animates  modern 
France  can  be  summed  up  in  one  sentence :  There  is 
but  one  France  and  one  Republic  and  both  are  one, 
one  and  indivisible. 


56 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE    CONSTITUTION 

THE  French  Constitution  is  and  has  been  a 
written  one  ever  since  the  days  when  the  National 
Assembly  laid,  by  means  of  the  Declaration  of  the 
Rights  of  Man  and  of  the  Citizen,  the  foundation  on 
which  successive  French  constitutions  were  built  and  on 
which  rests  the  resulting  constitution  of  to-day.  It  is  a 
short  and  simple  document,  comprehensive  and  clear, 
as  is  usually  the  case  with  writings  in  the  French 
language.  Any  man  can  read  and  understand  it,  as  he 
can  read  the  Code  NapoUon  and  its  additions  ;  thus  all 
Frenchmen  are  presumed  to  be  cognisant  of  the  law ; 
thus  also  there  is  little  work  in  France  for  the  law-officer 
and  the  quibbling  politician. 

I  am  aware  that  the  British  race  clings  with  pathetic 
loyalty  to  that  hoary  and  sacrosanct  abstraction  known 
as  the  British  Constitution;  few  British  subjects  could, 
however,  put  forward  in  a  clear  and  complete  manner 
the  principles  on  which  their  government  is  based. 
Should  it  become  necessary  to  settle  a  constitutional 
point,  we  must,  of  course,  fly  to  Hansard  or  to  a 
specialist ;  should  we  appoint  two  specialists  and  if  the 
one  be  blue  and  the  other  buff  there  is  no  knowing 
what  the  verdict  may  be.  I  must  say  that  the  idea  of 
having  to  settle  a  constitutional  point  strikes  the  man 

57 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

who  has  lived  in  a  land  endowed  with  a  written  con- 
stitution dumb  with  amazement.  Why  in  the  name  of 
common  sense  should  there  be  such  a  thing  as  a 
constitutional  point?  The  organic  laws  on  which  a 
society  is  based  should  be  so  clear  and  so  simple  that  no 
point  could  be  raised.  Moreover,  a  written  constitution 
enables  the  legislator  to  do  away  with,  at  least,  a  portion 
of  the  past ;  it  is  usually  enough  for  an  institution  or  a 
law  to  be  old  for  it  to  be  bad,  because  there  is  every 
chance  that  it  will  be  obsolete,  that  it  will  have  been 
framed  for  old,  not  for  modern,  needs.  I  am  aware 
that  this  theory  is  in  direct  conflict  with  British  opinion 
and  that  the  older  the  institution  is,  the  more  it  is  be- 
loved ;  I  hold  no  brief  against  the  British  Constitution, 
which  will  withstand  fiercer  attacks  than  any  I  could 
venture  to  make,  but  it  is  essential  to  compare  its  spirit 
with  that  of  the  French  Constitution  if  it  be  desired  to 
understand  the  latter. 

The  French  race  has  no  respect  for  antiquity ;  the 
expression  "  good  old,"  which  we  apply  affectionately  to 
obsolescence  has,  it  is  true,  its  exact  equivalent  in 
French,,  but  it  is  not  often  used  because  of  the  con- 
tradiction that  exists  in  the  French  mind  between  the 
two  adjectives.  There  is  no  hostility  against  dead 
days  and  dead  customs,  but  the  French  have  no  more 
liking  for  an  old  law  than  for  an  old  shoe ;  so  long  as 
the  law  suits  the  times  and  the  shoe  keeps  out  the  wet, 
the  French  will  retain  them  ;  as  soon  as  either  shows 
signs  of  wear,  the  nation  decides  to  make  a  change. 
This  is  possibly  a  very  shocking  and  unstable  state  of 
things,  savouring  of  anarchism  and  no  doubt  inferior  to 
the  lamb-like  submission  with  which  we  accept  the  legacy 
of  centuries.    The  British  love  a  thing  because  it  is  old  ; 

58 


The  Constitution 

the  French  may  love  it  even  if  it  be  old  but  not  because  : 
there  is  no  merit  in  age  ;  indeed  there  is  a  prima  facie 
case  against  it,  as  an  old  law  may  be  presumed  out  of 
date  and  the  onus  of  proof  laid  upon  it. 

For  this  reason,  the  French  have  never  shrunk  from 
altering  their  constitution  ever  since,  in  revolutionary 
days,  the  nation  arrived  at  man's  estate.  Every  regime 
has  left  its  trace  upon  the  basic  principles  of  govern- 
ment and  the  result  is  an  all-embracing  and  liberal 
system.  Before  we  proceed  to  analyse  it,  a  few  words 
should  be  devoted  to  the  question  of  written  constitu- 
tions, a  subject  on  which  the  French  have  felt  strongly 
for  the  last  hundred  and  twenty  years. 

French  constitutions  have  always  been  written ; 
whether  the  regime  was  Republican  or  Monarchic,  a 
document  has  always  been  prepared  and  has  clearly  set 
forth  the  duties  and  rights  of  men  and  of  classes.  In 
this  the  French  have  not  been  singular ;  indeed,  in 
those  countries  that  enjoy  representative  institutions,  I 
can  recall  no  exception  to  the  rule  beyond  Great  Britain. 
All  European  states  have  written  constitutions,  a  copy 
of  which  can  be  purchased  by  any  man  for  a  few  pence 
or  consulted  free  of  charge  at  the  library  of  the  seat  of 
government ;  all  recently  formed  states,  such  as  the 
South  American  republics  and  the  British  self-governing 
colonies,  also  have  written  constitutions.  Great  Britain 
stands  practically  alone  in  this  matter  (for  even  Russia 
already  possesses  an  embryo  constitution  in  writing),  or 
must  be  classed  with  savage  sultanates.  Singularly 
enough,  Great  Britain  has  granted  written  constitutions 
to  various  colonies  but  she  has  not  put  her  own  house 
in  order  and  continues  to  grope  in  her  archives.  Thus, 
when  the  French  adopt  the  principle  that  a  constitution 

59 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

should  be  written,  they  are  at  one  with  the  majority  ; 
there  may  be  truth  in  the  Ibsenian  theory  that  the 
majority  is  always  wrong,  but  modern  political  methods 
of  government  are  based  on  majorities  and  I  cannot 
conceive  of  any  other.  Unanimity  was,  history  tells  us, 
adopted  only  in  the  case  of  Poland  and  history  also 
tells  us  what  the  result  was  for  that  now  defunct  state. 

The  main  object  in  having  a  written  document,  to 
which  reference  can  be  made  in  case  of  doubt,  is  to 
enable  the  governing  body  to  know  exactly  its  powers 
and  its  duties,  instead  of  having  to  ferret  them  out  of 
the  lumber-room  of  dead  laws  and  make  wild  guesses 
when  there  is  no  information.  The  French  are  a  precise 
people  ;  they  like  to  know  exactly  what  they  owe  and 
what  is  due  to  them,  both  materially  and  politically  ; 
for  that  reason,  they  will  not  accept  vague  traditions  as 
a  guide,  but  demand  that  a  short  document  should  be 
framed  which  will  settle  all  future  difficulties. 

The  French  have  always  clung  to  written  expression 
as  opposed  to  tradition,  because  they  instinctively  felt 
that  this  vexed  question  of  interpretation  would  come 
to  the  fore  if  the  constitution  were  not  precise.  They 
do  not  love  the  legal  profession  and  there  are  not  in 
France  a  tithe  of  the  barristers  and  solicitors  with 
whom  Great  Britain  is  blessed,  nor  is  their  occupation 
so  lucrative.  This  is  due,  not  only  to  the  written  con- 
stitution, which  affects  only  certain  cases,  but  also  to  the 
fact  that,  in  the  same  spirit,  the  law  is  written  instead  of 
being  judge -made,  sometimes  judge-unmade.  The 
French  love  precision  ;  that  is  the  secret  of  the  elegance 
of  their  literature,  of  the  delicacy  and  skill  of  their  arts, 
of  the  lucidity  of  their  philosophers,  scientists  and 
statesmen.     Tradition  excludes  precision,  whereas  writ- 

60 


The  Constitution 

ing  promotes  it :  for  that  reason,  the  French  have  never 
forsaken  the  ideal  of  a  written  constitution. 

Another  consideration  also  arises  :  nothing  is  so  diffi- 
cult to  modify  permanently  as  a  traditional  constitution, 
nor  so  easy  to  alter  as  a  written  one.  We  must  not  pin 
our  faith  to  externals,  to  the  appearance  of  difficulty,  but 
we  must  look  to  the  ultimate  result.  When  a  written 
constitution  has  to  be  modified,  violent  opposition  has 
to  be  faced,  everywhere  the  iconoclast  is  denounced  and 
every  word  of  the  new  text  is  fought  tooth  and  nail ; 
once  the  battle  is  over,  however,  and  the  new  principle 
is  embodied  in  the  organic  law,  it  is  there  for  good  and 
can  be  removed  only  by  open  and  definite  action.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  constitution  be  traditional,  a  new 
principle  may  be  introduced  by  slow,  imperceptible 
stages  ;  it  is  influenced  by  literature,  by  polemics,  by  the 
courts  of  law ;  the  new  theory  passes  into  the  constitu- 
tion by  degrees,  but  it  can  as  easily  pass  out ;  in  fact, 
the  traditional  constitution  is  wax  to  receive  but  also 
wax  to  retain.  Thus  no  man  can  ever  tell  exactly  what 
the  true  situation  is ;  such  questions  as  those  of  the 
latchkey  voter  are  cases  in  point  :  conflicting  decisions 
have  been  arrived  at  all  over  the  country  and  inequali- 
ties established.  At  the  present  time,  this  part  of  the 
law  is  a  tangled  skein  :  some  men  have  a  vote  because 
they  have  a  latchkey  and  some  have  a  latchkey  and  no 
vote.  It  would  be  ludicrous  if  it  were  not  pathetic  to 
observe  the  result  of  the  application  of  interpretation 
to  matters  electoral. 

In  one  sense  only  can  the  unwritten  constitution  be 
defended  :  it  may  be  argued  that  it  is  elastic,  which  a 
solemn  declaration  never  can  be,  that  it  is  thus  able  to 
keep  abreast  and  even  ahead  of  the  times.     This  is  a 

6i 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

tempting  theory ;  it  conjures  up  a  vision  of  perpetual 
progress,  of  an  enlightened  government  intelligently 
shaping  itself,  day  by  day,  to  the  wavering  needs  and 
aspirations  of  the  people.  Like  most  fascinating 
theories,  it  is,  however,  a  fallacy.  Governments  never 
evolve  :  like  fungi  they  exist  and  like  limpets  they  cling, 
but  they  never  change  their  ways  until  they  are  coerced 
by  the  intolerable  pressure  of  public  clamour.  Thus, 
we  find  the  government  in  charge  of  a  vague  and 
antique  code  able  to  twist  it  to  suit  their  passing 
convenience,  unable  to  alter  its  shape  in  a  radical 
manner,  simply  because  it  has  none.  We  do  not  want 
a  constitution  to  be  elastic  any  more  than  we  want  a 
staff  to  be  pliable  :  if  we  are  to  put  faith  in  the  value  of 
either,  they  must  be  sturdy,  rigid,  uncompromising 
things.  When  the  constitution  is  out  of  date,  we  can 
scrap  it,  but  meanwhile  we  shall  know  exactly  how  we 
stand. 

The  modern  French  Constitution  has  not  come  into 
being  without  passing  through  troubles  and  adventures  ; 
every  change  of  regime  has  left  its  mark  on  the 
document,  sometimes  in  an  unexpected  manner,  as 
Reactionary  governments  have  not  invariably  adopted  a 
Reactionary  constitution.  The  French  did  not  shrink 
from  change  in  this  respect  any  more  than  they  shrank 
from  revolutions;  even  since  1875,  when  the  present 
Constitution  was  laid  down,  minor  modifications  have 
been  introduced.  One  of  these  was  the  exclusion  of  the 
laws  relating  to  the  Senate  from  the  Constitution,  which 
shows  how  easily  a  written  document  can  be  altered  to 
suit  new  requirements,  whilst  the  difficulties  between 
Lords  and  Commons  in  this  country  give  rise  periodi- 
cally to  a  kind  of  crisis. 

62 


The  Constitution 

The  modern  French  Constitution  is  based  on  the 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  the  Citizen  ; 
ever  since  1789,  when  that  glorious  pronouncement  was 
made,  it  has  proved  the  foundation  of  all  the  French 
constitutions,  a  foundation  which  no  regime^  however 
Reactionary,  not  even  the  First  Empire,  has  entirely- 
ignored.  It  must,  of  course,  be  understood  that  the 
Declaration  itself  was  never  taken  as  a  constitution  ;  it 
was  too  general,  too  far-reaching  and  its  application 
would  have  been  impossible.  The  first  Constitution  was 
based  upon  it  and  included  little  beyond  its  principles, 
but  it  entered  into  detail ;  it  was  the  workable  scheme 
into  which  the  great  idea  was  incorporated. 

The  first  French  Constitution  was  placed  on  the 
statute  book  which,  legally  speaking,  was  still  virgin,  on 
the  3rd  September  1791,  and  was  accepted  by  the  King 
ten  days  later.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  document 
was  no  mushroom  growth,  springing  up  during  the  fury 
of  revolution  by  favour  of  the  mistaken  enthusiasm  of  a 
suddenly  emancipated  people ;  it  was  debated  for  two 
years  by  a  national  assembly  where  the  people,  the 
nobility  and  the  clergy  were  represented  in  force ;  its 
articles  were  passed  one  by  one,  assented  to  by  all 
parties  and  finally  accepted  by  the  King  of  his  own  free 
will.  I  mean  by  this  that  he  was  not  a  prisoner ;  he 
knew  that  to  refuse  might  be  dangerous,  but  he  was  still 
a  king  and  a  free  man ;  indeed,  nine  months  later,  he 
was  still  powerful  enough  to  veto  two  important  decrees, 
the  one  banishing  those  priests  who  refused  to  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Constitution,  the  other  sanction- 
ing the  encamping  of  the  twenty  thousand  federated 
soldiery.  But  for  his  flight  and  arrest,  it  is  even  possible 
that  he  might  have  preserved  his  crown. 

63 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

^  Apart  from  the  Declaration,  interesting  points  of 
detail  are  raised  and  solved  in  the  Constitution.  All 
titles  and  peerages,  orders  of  nobility  and  privileges 
appertaining  thereto  are  suppressed  ;  that  was  to  be 
expected,  and  who  will  take  exception  to  it  ?  Also,  an 
excellent  provision  is  introduced,  forbidding  the  sale  or 
bequest  of  any  public  office ;  many  years  were  to 
elapse  before  Great  Britain  could  reach  such  a  point  as 
regards  commissions  in  the  army,  for  instance.  At 
the  same  time,  the  Constitution,  in  its  resolute  war 
against  privilege,  suppresses  all  the  commercial  and  in- 
dustrial guilds  on  the  plea  that  they  fettered  enterprise 
and  were  inimical  to  progress  ;  had  such  an  upheaval 
taken  place  in  Great  Britain,  we  should  have  no  livery 
companies,  which  would  not  matter  very  much,  and  no 
city  corporation,  which  none  but  the  lovers  of  the 
picturesque  would  miss. 

The  law  also  acknowledged  the  right  of  all  men  to 
petition  the  Government  and  to  assemble  when  and  as 
they  may  think  fit,  provided  it  be  without  weapons. 
Moreover,  and  this  is  highly  interesting  in  view  of 
recent  events,  the  Constitution  lays  down  that "  all 
properties  destined  to  religious  service  .  .  .  belong  to 
the  nation  and  are  at  all  times  at  its  disposal."  Let 
us  not  forget  this  when  recent  French  Governments  are 
taxed  with  arbitrariness  and  brutality  :  nearly  a  hundred 
and  twenty  years  ago  the  principle  was  stated  and  the 
properties  that  were  later  given  in  trust  to  the  Church 
have  only  returned  to  their  real  owners.  In  this  regard 
it  should  also  be  noted  that,  according  to  this  Constitu- 
tion, the  citizens  were  to  have  the  right  of  choosing 
their  own  ministers — a  valuable  privilege  which  should 
never  have  been  surrendered. 

64 


The  Constitution 

Inspired  by  lofty  principles,  the  Constitution  also 
remembered  the  poor  and  the  sick  and  provided  a 
system  comparable  with  the  Poor  Law ;  the  latter  was 
also  inspired,  no  doubt,  by  humanitarianism  :  if  it  has 
broken  down  and  the  French  system  survived,  it  is 
because,  for  reasons  I  hope  to  show  further  on,  poverty 
has  not  increased  in  France. 

The  Constitution  of  1791  did  not  long  survive,  not 
so  much  because  it  did  not  meet  the  views  of  the  ever- 
growing extremist  party,  for  little  further  advance  was 
possible  in  the  direction  of  Liberalism,  as  because  it  was 
intended  to  work  with  a  king.  After  the  trial  and 
execution  of  Louis  XVI,  in  January  1793,  the  instru- 
ment was  void  ;  for  this  reason  the  Convention  re- 
moulded the  Constitution  and,  led  mainly  by  Robes- 
pierre, passed  a  new  law  where  the  fury  of  independence 
led  to  the  insertion  of  articles  which  cannot  be  looked 
upon  as  workable.  This  document  still  acknowledges 
the  Supreme  Being,  and  the  greater  part  of  it  contains 
the  same  principles  and  is  expressed  in  almost  the 
same  words  as  the  first  Constitution. 

This  Constitution  emphasises  the  fact  that  no  law 
may  be  brought  to  bear  on  an  offence  which  was  not 
formerly  punishable,  and  makes  an  important  declara- 
tion of  which  we  find  traces  in  modern  French  law :  it 
limits  the  right  of  contract.  The  Constitution  of  1793 
forbids  a  man  to  sell  himself  or  to  undertake  not  to 
engage  in  any  particular  work  ;  it  should  be  understood 
that  the  spiiit  of  the  Constitution,  as  shown  in  other 
parts,  was  that  this  provision  applied  only  to  indefinite 
periods.  Men  had  the  right  to  limit  their  activities  for 
a  reasonable  time  but  not  for  life,  as  might  a  serf  under 
the  old  regime.  The  Constitution  affirms  the  debt  of 
F  65 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Society  to  its  poorer  members  and  binds  it  to  supply 
them  with  work  ;  here  we  find  the  dawning  of  the 
Socialistic  idea  and,  in  this  article,  we  feel  the  influence 
of  Robespierre,  the  meteor.  To  him  also  the  Constitu- 
tion owes  the  statement  that  "  no  man  may  usurp 
sovereignty  without  incurring  the  penalty  of  death." 
I  in  no  wise  quarrel  with  the  action  of  those  who 
executed  Louis  XVI,  but  I  cannot  help  noting  the 
grim  contradiction  of  two  articles,  the  one  decreeing 
that  no  law  shall  be  retroactive,  the  other,  passed  six 
months  after  the  execution  of  the  King,  establishing 
the  death  penalty  for  the  assumption  of  sovereignty. 
To  conclude  these  brief  remarks  on  the  Constitution  of 
1793,  I  would  quote  the  famous  Article  35,  drafted  by 
the  all-pervading  Robespierre  : — 

"  When  the  Government  violates  the  Rights  of 
the  People,  Insurrection  is  for  the  People  and  for 
every  Section  of  the  People  the  most  sacred  and 
necessary  of  Rights." 

This  is  a  terrible  prescription  if  it  be  taken  literally, 
not  so  if  it  be  understood  as  we,  in  this  country,  under- 
stand agitation.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  Constitution  must 
be  considered  as  having  been  acceptable  to  the  nation, 
for  it  was  submitted  to  it  after  a  unanimous  vote  of  the 
Convention  with  an  extraordinary  result :  it  received 
1,801,918  votes,  only  11,610  being  cast  against  it. 
Thus,  good  or  bad,  and  all  democrats  will  call  it  good, 
the  Constitution  was  supported  by  the  people  after  a 
direct  appeal. 

After  La  Terreur,  the  Constitution  was  amended, 
but  no  new  feature  of  great  importance  was  intro- 
duced ;  the  tendency  was  then  to  insert  much  irrele- 

66 


The  Constitution 

vant  matter  but,  as  it  is  mostly  interesting,  a  few  points 
may  be  noted.  Special  provision  is  made  for  State 
encouragement  of  invention,  a  practice  which  succes- 
sive governments  have  not  abandoned ;  another  banished 
formally  all  the  ^migris  of  the  early  days  and  confis- 
cated their  property.  The  execution  of  the  document 
was  then  handed  over  to  the  Directoire,  a  committee  of 
five,  legislative  power  being  vested  in  two  houses,  both 
elective.  An  appeal  to  the  country  again  resulted 
in  an  enormous  majority  for  the  Constitution,  916,334 
votes  having  been  cast  for  it  and  only  41,892  against. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  apparition  of 
Bonaparte  as  First  Consul  resulted  practically  in  a 
clean  sweep  of  the  revolutionary  ideas ;  the  Constitu- 
tion vanished.  Though  General  Bonaparte,  in  his  first 
proclamation,  professes  fairly  sans-culotte  views,  in  fact, 
beyond  the  habeas  corpus  and  the  right  to  petition, 
nothing  was  left  of  the  older  systems.  Finally,  in  1804, 
Napoleon  captures  the  machine  and,  for  over  ten  years, 
there  is  in  France  no  Constitution  (as  the  French  under- 
stand the  term) ;  all  bends  before  the  imperious  will  of 
the  Emperor. 

Louis  XVIII  was  not  cast  in  the  Napoleonic  mould  ; 
thus  he  found  himself  compelled  to  grant  a  charter,  in 
which  were  embodied  principles  comparable  with  those 
of  the  Constitution  of  1791  ;  in  fact,  the  situation  was 
similar,  as  both  monarchies  were  limited  in  power  ; 
thus  the  Bourbon  had  to  accept  the  very  principles 
which  had  proved  the  undoing  of  his  brother.  There 
is  nothing  of  cardinal  importance  in  the  charter,  except 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  established  per- 
manently as  the  State  religion  kept  up  out  of  State 
funds.     Curiously  enough,  the  Reactionary  government 

67 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  Louis- Philippe  modified  this  very  prescription, 
possibly  because  clerical  support  was  already  proving 
an  old  man  of  the  sea.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
was  no  longer  distinguished  as  the  State  Church,  though 
it  was  still  stipulated  that  its  ministers  alone  should  be 
supported  by  the  nation. 

In  1848  France  is  emancipated  from  nearly  fifty 
years  of  Monarchic  trammels  and  the  Constitution  of 
the  Second  Republic  restates  the  constitutions  of  1791 
and  1793,  taking  the  middle  course  between  Girondin 
lukewarmness  and  Jacobiti  fury.  Practically,  its  prin- 
ciples are  those  of  the  first  Constitution  :  it  reaffirms 
the  habeas  corpus,  abolishes  the  death  penalty  for  political 
offences  and  places  education  under  the  control  of  the 
State. 

The  Republic,  as  we  know,  was  short-lived  ;  after  the 
coup  d'etat  of  2nd  December  185 1,  the  referendum 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Prince  Louis-Napoleon  practi- 
cally dictatorial  powers  and,  one  year  later,  another 
emperor  reigned  over  the  French.  Singularly  enough, 
after  the  first  referendum  in  185 1  and  after  the  second, 
in  1852,  the  Imperial  Government  acknowledged  as  a 
basis  the  principles  of  1789.  No  doubt  the  Emperor 
felt  that  no  man  could  any  longer  ride  the  steed  on  the 
curb  and,  for  eighteen  years,  he  rode  it  on  the  snaffle 
successfully  enough.  Had  the  armies  of  France  been 
victorious  against  Germany  the  Imperial  regime  might 
have  survived  ;  it  was  not  particularly  popular,  but  it 
was  not  seriously  threatened  as  a  regime.  However,  it 
fell  and  the  Third  and  last  Republic  arose,  phoenix-like, 
from  the  ashes  of  its  predecessors.  The  new  Constitu- 
tion confined  itself  to  the  regulation  of  legislative  and 
executive  power  but,  as  it   is  the  regime  under  which 

68 


The  Constitution 

France  is  governed,  we  must  devote  more  attention  to 
it,  particularly  in  view  of  its  comparative  antiquity. 

It  is  one  thing  to  put  down  on  paper  altruistic  and 
noble  principles  and  to  establish  rules  under  which  a 
people  will  be  well  governed,  but  it  is  another  and  a 
very  much  more  difficult  thing  to  frame  a  working  con- 
stitution which  will  embody  the  principles  and  make 
the  rules  applicable  to  practical  needs.  General  state- 
ments are  easy  but,  when  we  come  to  incorporate  them 
into  a  system  of  government,  an  avalanche  of  detail 
often  overwhelms  them  ;  thus  they  may  disappear  as 
effectually  as  did  the  principles  of  1789  under  the 
Second  Empire  which  had  nominally  accepted  them. 
But  there  comes  a  time  when  the  people  and  their 
representatives  know  so  exactly  what  they  want  that 
the  discussion  centres  less  round  fundamental  points 
than  round  trifling  matters  of  wording.  This  was  the 
case  with  the  French  Constitution  known  nowadays  by 
its  date,  1875.  The  document  was  not  produced  in  a 
hurry ;  the  National  Assembly,  convened  immediately 
after  the  fall  of  the  Empire,  in  September  1870, 
governed  the  country  according  to  the  principles  of 
1789  and  1848  ;  there  was  no  constitution  and,  if  it  be 
not  contradictory  to  say  so,  France  was  ruled  by  a 
parliamentary  dictature.  f  The  Assembly  cleared  away 
the  wreckage  of  the  Franco-German  War,  suppressed 
the  riots  in  Paris  and  in  the  provinces,  arranged  for  the 
payment  of  the  indemnity  to  Germany,  all  this  by 
means  of  the  administrative  machinery  left  behind  by 
the  First  and  Second  Empires.  These  vital  matters 
occupied  its  energies  to  the  full,  and  it  is  perhaps  well 
that  constitution-making  was  not  proceeded  with  amid 
the  terrible  scenes  of  disorder  and    insurrection   that 

69 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

followed  the  war,  under  the  pressure  of  poverty  and  the 
eye  of  the  invader. 

However,  this  important  matter  was  not  lost  sight  of 
and,  in  November  1873,  a  commission  of  thirty  mem- 
bers, publicly  elected  from  among  the  representatives, 
was  appointed  to  draft  the  Constitution  of  the  Third 
Republic.  It  will  be  realised  that  the  thirty  did  their 
work  thoroughly,  for  they  devoted  to  their  task  the 
whole  of  their  time  for  fifteen  months,  so  that  the  Con- 
stitution was  passed  on  the  24th  and  25th  days  of 
February  1875,  the  last  portion  being  passed  on  the 
i6th  of  July  1875"  In  a  sense  it  was  a  final  draft  and 
it  has  been  accepted  as  such.  None  but  trifling  altera- 
tions were  introduced  in  1879  and  in  1884;  this  fact,  by 
the  way,  shows  that  the  eminently  practical  turn  of 
mind  of  the  French  had  not  died  out :  they  were  not 
deterred  in  the  matter  by  the  sentimental  associations  of 
the  document  and  boldly  altered  that  which  had  proved 
unworkable. 

The  Constitution  of  1875  is  not  a  very  lengthy  docu- 
ment and  I  should  like  to  quote  it  in  exte7iso,  as  I  did 
in  the  case  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man. 
The  text  contains,  however,  a  goodly  amount  of  detail, 
the  perusal  of  which  might  add  a  little  to  the  reader's 
knowledge  without  being  very  useful  as  regards  the 
understanding  of  the  aims  of  the  Constitution.  The 
commission  did  its  work  carefully  and  regulated  the 
powers  of  both  the  Executive  and  the  Legislature  very 
minutely ;  what  we  want  to  arrive  at  is  not  so  much 
comprehensive  knowledge  of  every  provision  as  an 
accurate  idea  of  the  object  of  these  provisions  and  of 
their  working  in  a  democratic  state.  For  that  reason 
I  will  abstain  from  quoting  any  unnecessary  matter ; 

70 


The  Constitution 

the  entire  text  may  be  found  in  the  latest  edition  of 
the  Statute  Book  or  Code,  which  can  be  purchased  by 
the  pubhc.^ 


LAW  PASSED  ON  THE   25TH  DAY  OF 
FEBRUARY    1875 

Article  i.  Legislative  power  is  exercised 
by  two  assemblies  :  the  Chamber  of  De- 
puties and  the  Senate. 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies  is  elected  by 
manhood  suffrage  under  the  conditions 
fixed  by  the  electoral  law. 

The  composition,  method  of  election  and 
functions  of  the  Senate  will  be  regulated  by 
a  special  law. 

Article  2.  The  President  of  the  Republic 
is  elected  by  an  absolute  majority  of  the 
votes  cast  by  the  Senate  and  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  convened  as  a  National  As- 
sembly. 

He  is  elected  for  seven  years.  He  may 
be  re-elected. 

Article  3.  The  President  of  the  Republic 
may  initiate  legislation  in  the  same  manner 

^  The  complete  statute  law  of  France  can  be  purchased  for  6s.  ;  truly 
a  remarkably  low  price. 

71 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

as  members  of  both  Houses.  He  promul- 
gates the  laws  after  they  have  been  passed 
by  the  two  Houses ;  he  superintends  and 
ensures  their  execution. 

He  controls  military  power. 

He  controls  nominations  to  all  civil  and 
military  posts. 

He  presides  at  national  ceremonies ;  he 
receives  the  credentials  of  envoys  and  am- 
bassadors of  foreign  powers. 

All  decrees  of  the  President  of  the  Re- 
public must  be  countersigned  by  a  Minis- 
ter. 

Article  5.  The  President  of  the  Republic 
may,  with  the  approval  of  the  Senate,  dis- 
solve the  Chamber  of  Deputies  before  its 
mandate  have  legally  expired. 

Article  6.  Ministers  are  jointly  respon- 
sible to  both  Houses  for  the  general  policy 
of  the  Government  and  individually  for 
their  personal  acts. 

The  President  of  the  Republic  cannot 
be  held  responsible  except  in  case  of  high 
treason. 

Article  8.  The  Republican  form  of  the 
government  cannot  be  revised.     Members 

72 


The  Constitution 

of  families  that  have  reigned  in  France  are 
not  eHgible  for  the  office  of  President  of  the 
Republic. 


LAW  PASSED  ON  THE  24TH  DAY  OF 
FEBRUARY    1875^ 

Article  i .  The  Senate  is  composed  of  three 
hundred  members :  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  are  elected  by  the  ddpartements'^  and 
seventy-five  by  the  National  Assembly.^ 

Article  3.  No  man  may  be  a  Senator  if 
he  be  not  a  Frenchman  aged  at  least  forty 
years  and  in  possession  of  his  civil  and 
political  rights. 

Article  4.  The  Senators  are  elected  by 
the  ddpartements  and  colonies  by  an  ab- 
solute majority  and,  when  necessary,  by 
list  voting,  through  an  electoral  college 
meeting  at  the  chef -lieu''  of  the  depart  enient 
or  colony  and  comprising : 

'  Articles  i  to  7  are  separated  from  the  Constitution  since  1884,  but 
this  does  not  detract  from  their  importance. 

-  Say  "county." 

^  Amended  1884,  "Life"  Senators  retained  their  seats,  but  these 
were  allotted  to  the  dipartements,  which  elect  new  members  as  vacancies 
occur  through  decease  or  resignation  of  the  nominated  Senators. 

*  Seat  of  administrative  and  executive  power  in  each  departement. 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

1.  The  Deputies ; 

2.  The  Conseillers  Gdndraux ;^ 

3.  The  Conseillers  d' Arrondissement ;. 

4.  The  delegates  elected  at  the  rate  of 
one^  for  every  Conseil  Municipal^  by  the 
electors  of  the  Commune!' 

Article  6.  The  Senators  elected  by  the 
ddpartements  and  colonies  are  chosen  for 
nine  years,  one-third  of  their  number  re- 
tiring every  three  years. 

Article  7.  The  Senators  elected  by  the 
National  Assembly  are  nominated  for  life. 
Should  a  seat  fall  vacant  through  decease, 
resignation  or  any  other  cause,  the  Senate 
shall  co-opt  a  new  member  within  two 
months.^ 

Article  8.  The  Senate  possesses,  equally 
with  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  the  right  to 
propose  and  to  pass  laws.  However, 
matters  relating  to  finance  must,  in  the 
first  'place,  be  presented  to  and  passed  by 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

^  Say  "county  councillors." 

*  Say  "borough"  or  "town"  councillors. 

^  Amended  in  1884.     Parishes  now  elect  from  one  to  twenty-four  dele- 
gates (Paris  thirty),  according  to  the  size  of  the  council. 
■*  Say  "parish  council."  *  Say  "parish." 

*  Void  since  1884. 

74 


The  Constitution 

Article  9.  The  Senate  may  be  consti- 
tuted into  a  court  of  justice  for  the  purpose 
of  trying  either  the  President  of  the  Re- 
pubhc  or  ministers,  and  of  sitting  in  judg- 
ment over  those  who  may  attempt  the 
security  of  the  State. 

LAW  PASSED  ON  THE   i6th  DAY  OF 
JULY    1875 

Article  i.  The  two  Houses  shall  be  in 
session  for  at  least  five  months  in  every 
year.  Their  respective  sessions  begin  and 
end  on  the  same  dates. 

Article  2.  The  President  of  the  Re- 
public proclaims  the  date  of  the  closure  of 
the  session.  He  may  hold  an  extraordinary 
session.  He  shall  be  compelled  to  do  so 
if  required  during  the  recess  by  the  majority 
of  the  members  composing  each  House. 
The  President  may  adjourn  the  Houses, 
but  the  period  of  adjournment  shall  not 
exceed  one  month,  nor  shall  an  adjournment 
take  place  more  than  twice  during  the  same 
session. 

Article  5.   The   sittings   of  the    Senate 

75 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

and  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  are  public. 
However,  each  House  may  constitute  itself 
in  secret  committee  if  required  to  by  a 
certain  number  of  members,  as  fixed  by  the 
rules  of  the  House. 

Article  6.  The  President  of  the  Republic 
communicates  with  the  Houses  by  means 
of  messages  which  are  read  from  the  ros- 
trum by  a  Minister. 

Ministers  have  access  to  both  Houses 
and  shall  be  heard  whenever  they  de- 
mand it. 

Article  7.  Within  the  period  fixed  for 
the  promulgation  of  a  law,  the  President 
of  the  Republic  may,  by  means  of  a  mes- 
sage stating  the  grounds  for  his  action, 
request  both  Houses  to  discuss  it  afresh, 
which  request  cannot  be  declined. 

Article  8.  The  President  of  the  Repub- 
lic discusses  and  ratifies  treaties.  He  makes 
these  known  to  both  Houses  as  soon  as  is 
compatible  with  the  interests  and  security 
of  the  State.  Treaties  fixing  the  terms  of 
peace,  commercial  treaties  and  such  treaties 
as  may  affect  the  finances  of  the  State,  the 
personal  status  and  rights  of  property  of 

76 


The  Constitution 

French  citizens  resident  abroad,  shall  not 
take  effect  until  they  have  been  passed  by 
both  Houses.  No  cession,  exchange  or 
annexation  of  territory  can  be  completed 
until  a  law  has  been  passed  to  that  effect. 

Article  9.  The  President  of  the  Repub- 
lic cannot  declare  war  without  the  previous 
consent  of  both  Houses. 

Article  12.  The  President  of  the  Re- 
public cannot  be  impeached  by  any  but  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  ;  he  cannot  be  tried 
by  any  but  the  Senate. 

Ministers  may  be  impeached  by  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  for  crimes  committed 
by  them  and  connected  with  their  office.  In 
this  case,  they  are  tried  by  the  Senate. 

The  Senate  may  be  constituted  as  a  court 
of  justice  by  a  decree  of  the  President  of 
the  Republic,  passed  by  a  Cabinet  Council, 
for  the  purpose  of  trying  any  person  charged 
with  an  attempt  against  the  security  of  the 
State. 

Article  13.  No  member  of  either  House 
may  be  prosecuted  or  sued  for  opinions  he 
may  have  voiced  or  votes  he  may  have  cast 
while  exercising  his  functions. 

n 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Article  14.  No  member  of  either  House 
may,  while  either  House  is.  in  session,  be 
prosecuted  or  arrested,  under  criminal  law 
or  police  regulations,  without  the  consent 
of  the  House  of  which  he  is  a  member, 
except  he  be  arrested  in  the  act.  The  de- 
tention or  imprisonment  of  a  member  of 
either  House  shall  be  suspended  during  the 
whole  of  the  session  if  the  House  de- 
mands it. 


78 


CHAPTER   V 

THE   CONSTITUTION   AND   THE 
GOVERNMENT 

THE  three  laws  quoted  at  the  end  of  the  foregoing 
chapter  embody  the  essential  principles  of  the 
Constitution  ;  to  have  given  them  in  extenso  would  not 
have  been  an  encroachment  on  the  space  at  my  disposal, 
but  the  articles  omitted  refer  mainly  to  dates  on  which 
the  Houses  must  be  called  together  and  to  delays  allow- 
able under  certain  circumstances.  To  give  such  details 
as  these  would  not  have  contributed  to  the  easy  under- 
standing of  what  is  really  a  simple  system.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  foreign  system  and,  for  that  reason  alone,  it  is 
necessary  to  elucidate  a  few  points  that  bear  upon 
novel  institutions.  Moreover,  as  these  rules,  though 
more  precise  than  any  declaration,  do  not  give  an 
adequate  idea  of  the  mechanism  by  means  of  which 
they  are  applied,  it  becomes  important  to  add  a  few  de- 
tails with  reference  to  matters  electoral  and  general 
which  have  been  settled  subsequently  to  the  passing  of 
the  organic  laws. 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies  is  the  democratic  House, 
in  this  sense  that  its  members  are  in  closer  personal 
contact  with  the  electors  than  are  the  Senators.  The 
object  of  the  Constitution  is  to  make  the  House  demo- 
cratic and  easily  accessible  to  all  classes  and,  to  this 

79 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

effect,  it  has  imposed  no  irksome  restrictions  on  mem- 
bership. Singularly  enough,  though  the  Constitution 
originally  fixed  with  some  minuteness  the  conditions 
under  which  a  citizen  could  be  elected  a  Senator,  it  was 
dumb  as  regards  Deputies,  so  that  the  election  of  the 
latter  had  to  be  provided  for  by  special  electoral  laws. 
At  the  present  time,  no  citizen  may  be  a  Deputy  who  is 
not  twenty-five  years  of  age,  French,  in  possession  of 
his  civil  and  political  rights  and  able  to  prove  that  he 
has  completed  his  military  service.  As  regards  the  latter 
condition,  it  does  not,  of  course,  apply  to  those  who  have 
been  rejected  as  physically  unfit,  though,  under  the  mili- 
tary laws  now  in  force,  their  number  be  very  small.^ 

A  member,  to  be  legally  elected,  must  aggregate  the 
absolute  majority  of  votes,  i.e.  over  one-half  of  the  votes 
polled.  Should  he  fail  to  do  so,  a  second  ballot  takes 
place,  when  the  leader  of  the  poll  is  declared  elected, 
whatever  be  the  support  he  may  have  received.  In 
practice,  certain  parties  retire  in  favour  of  one  another 
according  to  the  working  alliances  that  are  necessary 
under  a  regime  of  coalition  governments ;  should  a 
member  be  unopposed,  constitutionally  the  poll  should 
be  taken  and  the  member  elected,  however  few  votes  he 
may  have  received,  but  there  are  few  instances  of  such 
cases,  a  fact  easily  explained  by  the  substantial  salary 
paid  to  members.  Opinions  may  differ  as  to  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  second  ballot ;  it  has  not  been  necessary 
to  include  it,  up  to  the  present,  in  the  British  system, 
because  there  were  only  two  parties.  Ever  since  the 
Home  Rule  split  it  has,  however,  been  a  question  of 
some    importance ;    after   the   fall   of    Mr.    Gladstone, 

^  The  lame  and  the  weakly  are  not  exempted  but  are  drafted  into 
miUtary  offices,  factories,  etc. 

80 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

Liberal  Unionists  were  placed  in  the  unpleasant  position 
of  having  to  vote  for  a  Liberal,  a  potential  home-ruler, 
or  for  a  Conservative,  with  most  of  whose  opinions  theirs 
necessarily  clashed.  In  later  years,  the  situation  has 
been  complicated  by  a  similar  split  in  Unionist  ranks  on 
the  Tariff  Reform  question  and  by  the  apparition  of 
Labour  on  the  political  horizon  as  an  opponent  of  even 
the  Extreme  Radicals.  At  the  present  time,  three- 
cornered  contests  are  frequent  and  are  usually  produc- 
tive of  results  obviously  unsatisfactory  to  the  majority 
of  the  electorate.  Whether  we  find  two  Unionists 
splitting  the  Conservative  vote  on  Tariff  Reform  or 
Liberal  and  Labour  candidates  splitting  the  advanced 
vote,  the  results  are  equally  unpleasing  from  the  point 
of  view  of  common  sense  and  of  fair  play. 

Leaving  aside  the  question  of  the  second  ballot,  we 
see  that  any  citizen  who  fulfils  the  above  conditions,  and 
they  are  the  immense  majority,  may  become  a  Deputy 
for  a  renewable  period  of  four  years.  This  would, 
however,  be  delusive  as  far  as  democracy  is  concerned 
if  the  law  had  not  instituted  payment  of  members, 
which  alone  enables  the  representatives  of  the  poor  to 
accept  a  mandate.  The  salary  is  substantial,  £600 
a  year,  members  of  both  Houses  being  on  the  same 
footing,  but  it  is  not  excessive  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Deputies  must  almost  of  necessity  reside  in  Paris, 
where  the  cost  of  living  in  a  protected  country  is 
enhanced  by  living  in  a  protected  town.  Moreover, 
election  expenses  must  be  taken  into  account  and, 
between  elections,  a  constituency  looks  to  its  member 
for  monetary  assistance  for  various  objects ;  any  who 
have  experience  of  the  question  in  Great  Britain  will 
understand  that  this  is  not  a  trifling  matter. 

G  81 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  every  facility 
is  given  for  the  most  democratic  development ;  the 
question  of  the  payment  of  members  is,  of  course,  the 
most  important  one,  as  the  most  democratic  franchise 
in  the  world  will  not  help  men  into  parliament  if  they 
have  neither  salary  nor  private  means.  In  the 
British  Parliament,  it  is  true  that  the  majority  of 
the  members  follow  some  business  or  profession, 
but  they  are  usually  men  of  means  whose  partners 
conduct  their  business  whilst  they  deal  with  politics. 
In  a  sense,  they  are  professional  legislators,  and  it  is  in 
the  nature  of  things  that  they  cannot  hope  to  devote 
themselves  to  business  by  day  and  find  time  and  energy 
to  prepare  the  speeches  they  deliver  in  the  House  by 
night.  TThe  French  law-maker  is  a  man  of  a  different 
stamp,  though  he  is  also  a  professional ;  he  does  not 
usually  engage  in  business  or  any  other  occupation,  but 
devotes  himself  entirely  to  politics.  His  salary  enables 
him  to  live  and  the  precariousness  of  his  position 
makes  him  truly  representative  of  his  constituents.    / 

It  is  not  desirable  that  a  man  should  be  paid  directly 
by  the  electors,  as  is  the  case  in  Great  Britain  with  the 
Labour  member,  as  he  has  a  tendency  to  become  a 
machine,  to  lose  all  independence  of  opinion.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  desirable  that  popular  representa- 
tives should  be  very  rich  men,  able  to  disregard  utterly 
the  wishes  of  constituents  to  whom  they  are  not  linked 
by  the  power  of  the  purse.  In  the  first  case  there  is 
no  leader,  in  the  second,  no  real  following.  From  this 
point  of  view,  therefore,  the  French  system  appears 
superior,  for  it  adopts  the  middle  course  of  making  the 
member  dependent  upon  the  State  and  yet  not  sub- 
servient to  a  small  body  of  men.     Thus  the  Chamber 

82 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

of  Deputies  is  made  accessible  to  all  citizens,  and  they 
are  enabled  to  take  their  own  line  within  the  limits 
their  prudence  may  dictate. 

The  Constitution,  having  thus  ensured  that  the  repre- 
sentatives shall  be  of  any  class  that  the  electorate  may 
desire,  has  provided  through  special  laws  for  the  en- 
franchising of  the  greatest  possible  number  of  citizens. 
The  Constitution  specifies  that  every  citizen  shall  have 
a  vote,  irrespective  of  any  property  qualification,  and 
only  one  vote,  in  however  many  districts  he  may  have 
interests.  None  are  excluded  from  the  poll  except 
convicted  felons,  who  have,  by  the  fact  of  their  convic- 
tion, lost  their  political  rights,  chronic  drunkards,  the 
insane  and  the  feeble-minded.  The  troops  are  also 
excluded,  as  it  is  thought  unwise  to  sow  political  dis- 
sension amongst  them,  in  the  interests  of  discipline  and 
of  the  security  of  the  State.  The  democratic  character 
of  the  House  is  thus  intensified  by  the  still  more  demo- 
cratic character  of  the  electorate.  Not  only  does  the 
French  law  avoid  the  innumerable  complications  of  our 
electoral  system,  such  as  householder's,  occupier's, 
lodger's  franchise,  etc.,  by  giving  every  man  a  vote,  but 
it  provides  for  an  adjustment  of  power  by  limiting  every 
citizen  to  one  vote,  to  be  cast  in  the  constituency  in 
which  he  has  been  resident  for  the  six  months  preced- 
ing the  election,  or  in  one  of  those  where  he  may  have  a 
residence  ;  but  in  one  only. 

The  constituency  being  the  arrondissement,  which 
was  originally  created  as  an  administrative  portion  of 
the  departeinent  and  is  itself  divided  into  communes,  the 
establishment  of  the  roll  is  a  simple  matter.  Whereas 
in  Great  Britain  there  is  no  connection  between  parishes 
and  constituencies  and  special  machinery  is  required,  in 

83 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

France  the  lists  are  prepared  in  each  commune  and 
revised  annually.  There  is  no  question  of  rival  election 
agents  struggling  for  votes,  of  claims  and  objections,  of 
hair-splitting  decisions  by  the  revising  barrister.  In 
each  commune  a  mixed  committee  of  three,  comprising 
the  inaire}  an  official  delegate  and  a  municipal  dele- 
gate, revises  the  list  every  year  and  includes  in  it  all 
the  men  aged  twenty-one  who  have  been  resident  in  the 
commmte  for  six  months.  It  is  noteworthy,  with  regard 
to  plural  voting,  that  no  new  name  may  be  entered 
without  evidence  having  been  produced  to  show  that  it 
has  been  erased  from  the  lists  of  the  previous  place  of 
residence.  It  is  unnecessary  to  sing  the  praises  of 
methods  so  just,  so  simple  and  so  cheap. 

The  French  system  is  also  intended  to  cope  with 
inequalities  in  the  value  of  votes.  It  is  notorious  that 
this  can  never  be  done  absolutely,  even  by  means  of 
automatic  redistribution.  It  is  true  that  in  the  British 
colonies,  where  population  is  sparse  and  sedentary, 
automatic  redistribution  is  not  too  complex  a  matter 
(and  even  there  the  roll  may  take  six  months  to  a  year 
to  prepare)  but,  in  thickly  populated  centres,  it  is  a 
lengthy  and  costly  process.  As  is  well  known,  the 
British  system  is  thoroughly  out  of  date  and  the  Redis- 
tribution Act,  1885,  did  not  improve  it  much.  Of  the 
members  now  sitting,  one  was  returned  by  45,000^  elec- 
tors and  another  by  1 500,  whilst  a  great  many  instances 
can  be  quoted  where  one  member  represents  ten  times 
more  voters  than  another.  To  a  certain  extent  this  is 
also  the  case  in  France ;  not  only  was  it  found  neces- 

^  The  equivalent  of  the  French  niaire  is  not  necessarily  a  mayor ;  the 
position  is  usually  that  of  the  chairman  of  a  Parish  Council. 
^  Romford  about  50,000  in  1908. 

84 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

sary  to  stretch  a  point  as  regards  groups  exceeding  half 
the  population  entitled  to  a  member,  but  rural  emigra- 
tion has  set  in  to  a  certain  extent  and,  in  a  few  districts 
it  has  unfairly  influenced  the  attribution  of  members. 
However,  the  evil  is  a  minor  one,  because  the  popula- 
tion neither  increases  nor  decreases  to  any  great  extent, 
so  that  representation  is,  on  the  whole,  sufficiently  accu- 
rate. At  any  rate,  few  cases  have  come  to  light  where 
a  member  was  returned  by  more  than  treble  the  number  . 
of  electors  who  are  endowed  with  another  representa- 
tive. This  compares  very  favourably  with  the  case 
quoted  above  (Romford  45,000  and  Kilkenny  1500), 
where  the  one  electorate  is  thirty  times  larger  than  the 
other.  The  reason  is  that  the  French  did  not  give  way 
to  the  sentimental  tendencies  of  the  British,  which 
induced  the  latter  to  preserve  the  representation  of 
pocket  boroughs  and  dead  market  towns,  but  boldly 
marked  out  equal  fractions  on  the  map,  allotting  mem- 
bers in  strict  equity.  Moreover,  whilst  redistribution 
has  always  been  hampered  in  Great  Britain  and  has 
always  been  gerrymandered  in  the  name  of  tradition, 
the  French  made  a  clean  sweep  of  the  dead  past  and 
started  on  common-sense  lines.  The  distribution  is  not 
perfect,  because  the  population  may  vary  slightly  and 
provoke  a  local  upheaval ;  but  in  practice  this  is  not  the 
case.  For  instance,  if  an  arrondissement  had  101,000 
inhabitants  it  would  return  two  members ;  if  the  popu- 
lation were  to  decrease  by,  say,  1500,  it  would  thence- 
forth return  only  one ;  but  these  cases  are  rare  :  the  test 
of  a  system  is  not  that  which  might  happen,  but  that 
which  does  happen  over  a  reasonable  period. 

Unprejudiced   consideration  of  the   foregoing   must 
inevitably  result  in  a  favourable  verdict  for  the  French 

85 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

system  as  a  whole.  It  is  fair  because  it  aims  at  giving 
every  vote  the  same  value  ;  it  is  notoriously  cheap  and, 
above  all,  it  is  elastic ;  no  debatable  Redistribution 
Acts  are  needed  to  alter  the  boundaries  of  the  con- 
stituencies :  the  Census  alone  regulates  the  question. 
The  opposition  to  the  most  elementary  reforms  that 
confronts  us  in  this  country  is  amazing ;  manhood 
suffrage  is  opposed  because  it  leads  to  adult  suffrage 
and  it  is  therefore  argued  that  women  must  first  of  all 
be  enfranchised  on  the  same  terms  as  men  before  our 
methods  are  modified  ;  thus  we  are  forbidden  to  touch 
the  system.  On  the  other  hand,  if  woman's  suffrage  is 
proposed,  it  is  at  once  argued  that  the  present  system 
must  first  of  all  be  brought  up  to  date !  There  is  but 
one  word  for  such  tactics  :  they  are  dishonest. 

If  I  may  be  allowed  to  digress,  I  would  mention  that 
an  agitation  for  woman's  suffrage  is  beginning  to  make 
itself  felt  in  France  ;  it  is  far  from  having  attained  the 
degree  of  intensity  that  it  has  reached  in  Great  Britain, 
but,  singularly  enough,  it  may  succeed  in  France  before 
it  does  so  in  this  country,  owing  to  the  pronounced 
Socialist  tendency  of  modern  French  Parliaments,  who 
are  inclined  to  favour  adult  suffrage,  and  owing  also  to 
the  potency  of  feminine  influence  in  France,  which  is 
analysed  in  another  chapter. 

Before  treating  of  the  composition  of  the  Senate,  our 
attention  must  be  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  has  a  prior  right  of  criticism  as  regards  the 
Budget  and  laws  of  finance  in  general.  At  first  sight, 
this  may  seem  to  bring  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  into 
line  with  the  House  of  Commons,  but  the  privilege, 
though  inspired  with  the  same  spirit,  is  differently 
applied.    From  time  immemorial  the  Commons  have  had 

86 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

the  monopoly  of  money  votes  ;  even  in  medieval  days, 
as  a  last  resource,  French  kings  have  had  to  deal  with 
the  States  -  General  when  large  suras  were  needed. 
These  assemblies  comprised  representatives  of  all 
classes  and  were  an  embryonic  form  of  parliament ; 
limited  as  was  their  scope,  they  occasionally  made  the 
sovereign  feel  their  power,  so  that  their  political  heirs 
naturally  came  into  possession  of  a  jealously  guarded 
privilege.  But  whereas,  in  Great  Britain,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Second  Chamber  is  not  democratic, 
the  House  of  Commons  possesses  in  practice  the  sole 
right  of  considering  laws  of  finance,  in  France,  where 
the  Senate  is  an  elected  body,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
has  only  a  prior  right  of  criticism.  The  law,  having 
been  passed  by  the  Deputies,  must  also  be  passed  by  the 
Senators,  who  have,  equally  with  the  former,  the  right 
to  modify  it  as  they  may  think  fit ;  the  new  provisions 
are  then  returned  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  which 
may  decline  to  accept  the  alterations.  In  theory  the 
two  Houses  must  agree ;  should  they  be  unable  to  do 
so,  even  after  a  dissolution,  the  case  would  have  to  be 
decided  by  special  measures :  these  have  yet  to  be  in- 
vented because,  in  practice,  this  never  happens;  in  most 
cases  a  compromise  is  effected  and,  should  it  be  im- 
possible, the  Senate  yields. 

There  is  another  difference  as  regards  this  question  ; 
whereas,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  credits  cannot  be 
created  but  the  Budget  must  be  passed  or  rejected 
unaltered,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  the  Senate 
both  have  the  right  to  create  and  to  suppress  appro- 
priations. This  privilege  is  certainly  not  an  unmixed 
blessing,  for  a  considerable  amount  of  log-rolling  is 
always  taking  place ;  in  this  respect  the  British  system 

87 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

appears  superior,  as  it  prevents  members  from  currying 
favour  with  their  constituencies  at  the  expense  of  the 
Exchequer  and  enables  the  latter  to  restrict  the  outlay 
of  public  funds.  It  needs  a  very  masterful  man  to 
defend  the  Budget ;  according  to  Thiers,  to  ^  this 
thoroughly  a  minister  must  display  "  ferocity  "  ;  acWrd- 
ing  to  Bismarck,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
should  be  "  as  a  savage  mastiff  squatting  in  front  of  the 
public  chest."  As  most  Chancellors  are  neither  Thiers 
nor  Bismarcks,  a  restriction  of  this  privilege  of  French 
members  should  be  viewed  with  favour  ;  reform  is,  how- 
ever, unlikely  as  members  are  unwilling  to  abandon 
such  valuable  means  of  electoral  propaganda. 

The  foregoing  rapid  survey  of  the  powers  of  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  leads  us  naturally  to  a  similar 
study  of  the  privileges  of  the  Senate.  The  creation  of 
this  body  was  evidence  of  singular  wisdom,  given  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  Third  Republic  came 
into  being ;  recovering  from  a  terrible  war,  emancipated 
from  the  imperial  yoke,  it  needed  coolness  and  common 
sense  not  to  entrust  the  destinies  of  the  nation  to  a 
single  democratic  assembly.  The  French  are,  however, 
a  practical  people  with  a  gift  for  administration,  and  the 
National  Assembly  foresaw  that  they  would  at  once 
detect  the  dangers  of  a  single- chamber  system  ;  for  this 
reason  the  Senate  was  created  at  the  same  time  as  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  and,  though  the  people  have  from 
time  to  time  grumbled  at  the  institution,  its  suppression 
or  even  substantial  modification  has  rarely  been  pro- 
posed seriously. 

All  who  are  interested  in  politics  must,  at  the  present 
time,  be  well  posted  as  regards  the  question  of  "  One 
House  or  Two  ? "    The  more  hot-blooded  section  of  the 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

democratic  party  apparently  supports  the  single-house 
system,  as  is  natural  enough  from  an  extremist's  point 
of  view.  Let  them,  however,  consider  for  a  moment 
that  France,  that  most  democratic  of  nations,  did  not 
hesitat^M  the  very  heat  of  reaction  from  absolutism,  to 
estaWIsna  Second  Chamber  on  a  constitutional  basis. 

A  Second  Chamber  appears  to  be  a  necessity,  and  it 
should  be  slightly  more  conservative  than  the  First ; 
it  is  not  suggested  that  the  Second  Chamber  should  be 
undemocratic  :  it  should  merely  be  less  advanced  than 
the  First.  In  the  Lower  House  we  want  the  youth  and 
energy  of  the  nation,  the  ideas  and  the  ideals ;  in  the 
Upper  House  we  want  a  steadying  influence,  a  means  of 
curbing  the  Government  team  when  it  looks  like  getting 
out  of  hand.  We  do  not  want  a  Second  Chamber  to  block 
legislation  or  to  oppose  the  will  of  the  people,  but  we 
want  a  cautious  body  which  will  not  allow  the  Execu- 
tive to  be  rushed  into  danger  by  an  over-enthusiastic 
Lower  House. 

To  create  such  a  chamber  is  no  easy  matter :  either 
it  will  be  undemocratic  and  unprogressive  or  it  will  not 
serve  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  instituted,  because 
its  composition  will  be  similar  to  that  of  the  Lower 
House.  In  the  former  case  it  will  fall  into  discredit 
and,  in  the  latter,  it  will  be  useless.  Keeping  this  well 
in  mind,  the  legislators  of  1875  have  evolved  as  good  a 
system  as  can  be  conceived  ;  up  to  the  present  it  has 
worked  smoothly  and  efficiently.  With  this  object  in 
view,  the  Constitution  laid  down  restrictions  with  regard 
to  the  personality  of  the  members  and  the  status  of 
the  electorate ;  side  by  side  with  a  house  elected  by 
manhood  suffrage,  it  instituted  a  house  elected  by 
restricted   suffrage.     Originally  it  was   suggested    that 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

the  Upper  House  should  be  divided  into  classes,  a 
proposal  which  was,  of  course,  scouted  by  the  Republi- 
can party ;  it  was  also  suggested  that  a  property 
qualification  should  be  introduced,  but  this  provision 
also  naturally  failed  to  find  favour  in  the  eyes  of  the 
French  Radicals.  After  protracted  discussion,  the  con- 
ditions imposed  in  Articles  3  and  4  of  the  law  of  the 
24th  February  1875  were  unanimously  accepted. 

As  regards  the  selection  of  candidates,  it  will  be 
remembered  that,  inferentially,  any  man  entitled  to 
become  a  Deputy  may  become  a  Senator,  provided 
that  he  have  attained  the  age  of  forty.  Here  we  detect 
at  once  the  motive  of  the  legislator ;  the  object  of  the 
provision  is  the  obtention  of  a  body  of  mature  and 
sober  men.  The  age  of  forty  being  a  minimum,  the 
natural  result  is  that  the  average  age  of  Senators  is  far 
greater.  Men  do  not  usually  wait  until  that  time  to 
enter  politics ;  should  they  be  members  of  the  Lower 
House,  they  are  not  likely  to  leave  it  and  its  oppor- 
tunities at  an  age  when  their  fighting  powers  are  at 
their  best.  As  a  result,  candidates  for  senatorial 
honours  are  either  men  who  have  had  lengthy  parlia- 
mentary experience  or  laymen  who  have  made  their 
mark  in  science,  history  or  the  professions.  In  either 
case  they  are  likely  to  be  steady  and  cool,  less  given  to 
enthusiasm  than  younger  men  and  eminently  fitted  for 
the  role  of  moderator.  By  means  of  this  provision,  the 
Constitution  ensured  that  the  Upper  House  would  be 
preserved  from  the  ill-regulated  ardour  of  youth  but,  as 
it  did  not  intend  to  install  in  high  places  a  retrogressive 
body,  it  edicted  that  members  must  be  elected.  Leaving 
aside  the  body  of  "life"  Senators,  whose  numbers  have 
shrunk  from  seventy-five  to   about   a  dozen   and   the 

90 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

youngest  of  whom  is  not  likely  to  live  twenty  years,  we 
find  that  the  democratic  character  of  the  House  has 
been  ensured,  for  the  remaining  seats  are  occupied  by 
elected  members  ;  these  will  amount  to  three  hundred 
when  the  remaining  "life"  Senators  disappear,  after 
which  there  will  no  longer  be  a  trace  of  nomination  or 
co-option  in  the  French  legislative  system. 

In  another  direction,  we  are  also  confronted  by  the 
intention  of  the  legislator  who  wished  the  Upper  House 
to  be  "  Upper "  in  its  true  sense.  Keeping  in  mind 
democratic  principles,  he  laid  down  that  a  special  elec- 
torate should  be  invested  with  the  power  of  choosing 
representatives.  In  order  to  retain  contact  with  the 
people,  it  was  decided  that  their  elect  alone  should 
have  a  vote ;  by  these  means  a  superior  class  of  voter 
was  secured.  It  may  be  argued  that  county  or  other 
councillors  are  not  necessarily  the  salt  of  the  people 
but  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  vast  majority 
are  men  of  judgment,  education  and  substance.  Re- 
stricted suffrage  and  property  qualifications  are  not 
good  things  to  be  governed  by,  but  an  infusion  of  the 
former  element  acts  as  an  excellent  tonic  for  the  body 
electoral. 

Thus  we  find  the  electorate  composed,  as  stated  in 
Article  4,  of 

(a)  Men  who  have  been  elected  by  the  people,  such 
as  county,  town  or  borough  councillors ; 

(d)  Men  who  represent  each  parish  {conimune)  for  the 
special  purpose  of  electing  a  Senator. 

The  first  section  comprises  the  chosen  class ;  the 
second  provides  the  democratic  element.  Whether  this 
system  be  good  or  bad,  I  leave  the  reader  to  decide 
finally ;  all  that  need  be  added  is  that  the  Senate  has 

91 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

lived  up  to  constitutional  expectations.  For  years  it 
acted  as  a  restraint  on  hasty  legislation,  but  it  did  not 
impede  progress  ;  as  the  people  grew  more  advanced 
the  Senate  followed  suit  and  remained  in  sympathy  with 
them.  For  nearly  forty  years  it  has  retained  its  position 
in  the  political  system  without  incurring  the  dislike  of 
the  people,  which  is  no  small  achievement  for  a  consti- 
tutional wet  blanket. 

We  must  note,  with  reference  to  Article  9  of  the  law, 
the  shadowy  but  curious  resemblance  of  the  British  and 
the  French  Upper  Houses.  In  both  countries  it  has 
been  felt  that  a  high  authority  should  be  held  in  reserve 
to  try  cases  which  would  be  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 
ordinary  courts.  The  similarity  is  only  shadowy,  as 
the  House  of  Lords  is  not  itself  called  upon  to  try 
these  cases,  which  are  purely  private,  but  must  delegate 
its  power  to  specialist  peers,  whereas  the  Senate  can 
only  try  political  crimes  of  the  first  magnitude.  How- 
ever, we  must  note  that,  in  both  cases,  judicial  power 
has  been  conferred  upon  the  highest  legislative  authority 
in  the  land.  According  to  Article  9,  the  Senate  has 
the  power  to  try  for  high  treason  the  President  of  the 
Republic,  ministers  or  other  persons,  after  they  have 
been  indicted  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  In  this 
case  the  Senate  is  constituted  into  a  court  of  justice  for 
a  single  occasion  and  there  is,  of  course,  no  appeal 
from  its  verdict.  Such  trials  are  very  uncommon  ;  of 
late  years,  this  judicial  instrument  has  only  once  been 
set  in  motion,  viz.  against  M.  Paul  Deroulede  and  his 
supporters,  whose  plot  has  been  mentioned  in  another 
chapter. 

Before  dealing  with  the  status  of  the  Executive,  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  Constitution  provides  both 

92 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

Deputies  and  Senators  for  the  colonies.  This  is  in- 
teresting in  view  of  the  suggestion  that  colonial  repre- 
sentatives should  be  admitted  into  what  would  then 
really  be  an  Imperial  British  Parliament.  The  problem 
is  a  difficult  one,  as  colonial  members  must  necessarily 
be  in  a  minority ;  should  they  be  allowed  a  voice  in  the 
control  of  home  affairs,  home  politicians  must  be 
allowed  to  take  part  in  colonial  business.  Friction 
would  inevitably  result  and,  apart  from  sentiment,  no 
useful  purpose  would  apparently  be  served.  This  is 
hardly  the  case  in  France,  where  the  colonies,  except 
Algeria,  are  either  unimportant  or  practically  devoid 
of  white  inhabitants.  The  French  have  no  liking  for 
devolution  of  power  and  have  centralised  in  Paris  the 
administration  of  their  colonies  ;  moreover,  bureaucracy 
is  all-powerful  in  the  oversea  dominions,  so  that  the  in- 
clusion of  Deputies  and  Senators  elected  by  them  does 
not  to  any  degree  modify  the  position.  If  the  colonies 
were  peopled  by  great  white  races,  as  is  the  case  with 
those  of  Great  Britain,  the  situation  would  be  dangerous 
and  might  resolve  itself  in  troubles  similar  to  those  that 
brought  about  the  insurrection  of  our  North  American 
Colonies ;  as  it  is,  this  modified  form  of  crown-colony 
government  appears  to  work  perfectly  smoothly. 

To  this  short  survey  of  the  respective  powers  of  the 
two  Houses  must  be  appended  a  few  details  concerning 
the  privileges  and  obligations  of  the  President  of  the 
Republic.  There  is  an  idea  abroad,  particularly  in  this 
country,  that  the  head  of  the  State  in  France  is  a  lay- 
figure,  a  mouthpiece  for  ministers  ;  this  is  no  doubt  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  President  is  not  responsible  for  his 
decrees,  ministers  alone  being  liable  to  be  called  to 
account  for  them.     If  a  man  is  devoid  of  responsibility 

93 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
he  is  usually  devoid  of  power,  or  should  be :  that  is 
severe  logic  but,  like  most  perfectly  logical  conclusions, 
it  is  not  practically  applied.  I  do  not  contend  that  the 
President  of  the  French  Republic  is  an  autocrat  of  the 
familiar  German  or  Russian  type,  nor  even  that  he 
enjoys  the  power  wielded  by,  say,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  but  he  is  endowed  with 
constitutional  powers-  sufficient  to  make  him  an  im- 
portant protagonist  on  the  platform  of  government, 
should  he  choose  to  exercise  them.  Such  men  as 
Marshal  MacMahon  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  M.  Felix 
Faure,  did  not  hesitate  to  act,  and,  should  the  present 
head  of  the  State  choose  to  make  use  of  his  preroga- 
tives, if  he  spoke  for  and  with  the  people  he  would  in 
all  likelihood  gain  the  popularity  that  is  ever  the  reward 
of  courage. 

The  French  usually  respect  the  President  and  often 
refer  to  him  as  "  the  first  magistrate  of  the  Republic," 
which  is  erroneous  but  complimentary.  They  are  no 
lovers  of  the  pomp  of  courts  and,  for  that  reason,  have 
allotted  to  him  only  ^^48,000  per  annum,  including  the 
maintenance  of  his  palace  in  Paris  and  of  his  country 
seat  at  Rambouillet ;  on  the  other  hand,  they  invariably 
supply  him  with  an  escort,  on  official  occasions,  and 
gather  in  their  thousands  wherever  he  is  likely  to  be 
present.  A  popular  President  is  a  very  important  man 
indeed,  and  a  powerful  one  may  seriously  influence  the 
progress  of  legislation. 

The  powers  of  the  President  are  definitely  laid  down 
and  limited  in  the  Constitution  ;  so  clearly  is  this  done 
that  a  few  words  on  the  subject  will  suffice.  A  very  im- 
portant prerogative  is  his  right  to  initiate  legislation  ;  at 
first  sight  it  may  be  argued  that  it  is  singular  to  find  the 

94 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

Executive  intruding  on  the  preserves  of  the  Legislature, 
but  it  is  less  so  when  we  remember  that  the  President  is 
invariably  a  Deputy  or  a  Senator  (though  the  Constitu- 
tion does  not  specify  this)  and  that,  therefore,  he  cannot 
lose  the  right  to  vote  or  to  initiate  legislation  that  has 
been  conferred  upon  him  by  his  constituents.  Indeed, 
under  the  circumstances,  his  privilege  is  comparable 
with  that  of  an  executive  Minister,  who  preserves  both 
these  rights.  Here,  already,  we  are  confronted  with  an 
important  privilege,  for  the  influential  position  of  the 
President  and  the  backing  he  may  acquire  in  the  country 
might  enable  him  to  carry  a  law  through  in  the  teeth  of 
ministerial  opposition  ;  it  should  be  said  that,  in  practice, 
the  President  never  dreams  of  assuming  this  attitude. 

The  rights  of  pardoning  malefactors,  of  nominating 
civil  and  military  officials  and  of  presiding  at  all  state 
ceremonies  are  the  natural  perquisites  of  executive 
power ;  all  these  the  President  has.  It  is  true  that 
every  one  of  his  decrees  must  be  countersigned  by  a 
Minister,  in  practice  the  Minister  in  charge  of  the 
matter  that  is  in  question,  but  it  is  also  true  that  he  can 
no  more  be  compelled  to  do  any  particular  act,  other 
than  the  promulgation  of  a  law,  than  can  the  Crown 
in  Great  Britain.  Should  a  conflict  arise,  either  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Legislature  or  between  the 
two  Houses,  the  President  has  in  hand  an  effective 
instrument :  he  can  dissolve  Parliament  and  bring  about 
new  elections  or  he  may  adjourn  the  sittings  for  one 
month  at  a  time,  twice  during  a  single  session.  Those 
are  important  powers  and,  as  has  already  been  said, 
President  MacMahon  made  use  of  them.  If  we  add  to 
them  the  right  to  demand  rediscussion  of  any  law  that 
has  not  yet  been  promulgated  by  him  and  that  of  pre- 

95 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
paring  and  negotiating  treaties,  we  find  that,  instead  of 
a  dummy,  we  have  an  influential  and  powerful  official 
at  the  head  of  the  French  State.  Any  other  system 
would  have  been  repugnant  to  the  nation  ;  democratic 
as  it  certainly  is,  it  favours  centralisation,  which  could 
never  be  attained  if  the  Executive  were  weak.  The 
position  of  the  French  President  is,  in  many  respects, 
similar  to  that  of  a  constitutional  monarch  (contradic- 
tory as  the  adjective  and  the  substantive  may  be), 
except  that  the  system  is  cheaper  and  that  it  does  not 
suffer  from  the  class  evils  with  which  monarchy  is  more 
or  less  bound  up.  In  a  sense,  the  President  is  more 
powerful  than  a  king,  as  he  has  behind  him  the  votes  of 
the  people ;  whereas  a  popular  king  enjoys  immense  in- 
fluence for  good  or  evil,  an  unpopular  king  can  only 
preserve  his  throne  by  the  power  of  the  bayonet. 
Popular  or  unpopular,  the  President  is  the  elect  of  the 
people  and  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  he  could  be 
overturned  by  any  hostile  combination. 

Another  embodiment  of  executive  power  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Ministers.  Their  status  does  not  in  any 
notable  respect  differ  from  that  of  British  Ministers. 
The  Premier  is  selected  by  the  President  from  among 
the  men  who  can  command  a  majority  in  both  Houses, 
as  he  is  in  Great  Britain  by  the  King;  Ministers  are 
jointly  responsible  for  Government  measures  and  resign 
when  in  a  minority  on  a  vote  of  confidence  or  an  im- 
portant measure,  as  is  the  case  in  this  country.  Indeed, 
all  that  need  be  mentioned  is  that  any  Cabinet  Minister 
has  access  to  both  Houses,  even  if  he  be  a  member  of 
neither.  This  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  in  view  of  the 
necessity  under  which  a  British  Prime  Minister  is  to 
ensure  the  representation  of  every  important  depart- 

96 


The  Constitution  and  the  Government 

ment  in  Lords  and  Commons  by  means  of  members  of 
both  Houses.  As  a  result,  valuable  men  may  be  left 
out  of  the  Cabinet,  because  Ministers  have  not  got 
access  to  both  Houses  and,  therefore,  both  must  be 
drawn  upon.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  French 
system  allows  of  the  inclusion  of  men  who  are  not 
members  of  either  House ;  this  widens  the  field  of 
selection  and  enables  the  Premier  to  secure  the  ser- 
vices of  experts,  particularly  of  eminent  soldiers  and 
sailors. 

Before  closing  this  survey  of  the  practical  working 
of  the  French  Constitution,  it  should  be  pointed  out 
that  French  ministries  are  unstable  and  that  this  in- 
stability, which  British  eyes  look  upon  with  disfavour, 
is  due  to  the  system  of  coalition  governments.  The 
French  are  a  Radical  nation  and,  as  a  result,  are  natur- 
ally inclined  to  differ  upon  means,  however  well  they 
may  be  agreed  upon  ends;  in  the  same  manner  as 
Radical  majorities  in  Great  Britain  are  always  liable  to 
break  up  at  a  moment's  notice,  because  their  com- 
ponent parts  think  for  themselves  and  do  not  fear  to 
act,  French  majorities  are  always  ready  to  discard  a 
Minister  or  a  Cabinet  as  soon  as  his  policy  no  longer 
tallies  with  theirs.  For  that  reason  the  "Bloc"  is  never 
very  solid,  except  on  national  questions  ;  I  hold  no 
brief  for  French  systems  and  admit  the  inherent  weak- 
ness of  coalition  governments.  I  am  not  prepared  to 
admit,  on  the  other  hand,  that  party  government  is 
superior ;  in  the  first  case  we  find  colourless  policy  and 
lack  of  continuity,  in  the  second  obtuseness  and  unin- 
telligent opposition.  As,  however,  in  cases  of  national 
emergency,  such  as  the  question  of  Church  and  State, 
we  find  that  successive  coalition  governments  have  now 

H  97 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

been  in  power  for  some  ten  years  without  modifying 
their  political  attitude  very  much,  we  are  driven  to 
admit  that  the  system  can  be  made  to  work  smoothly ; 
under  ordinary  circumstances,  coalition  governments  are 
not  very  strong  but  in  times  of  stress  they  are  all- 
powerful.  Party  government,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
always  vigorous  but  it  is  often  stupid. 

This  digression  being  at  an  end,  I  must  close  this 
long  though  necessary  survey  of  the  French  Constitu- 
tion and  its  working ;  it  extends  over  several  chapters 
and  they  are  none  too  many,  for  a  bulky  volume  could 
easily  be  devoted  to  the  subject.  I  do  not,  however, 
desire  to  enter  into  the  details  of  French  local  adminis- 
tration ;  they  can  be  found  in  special  legal  and  economic 
text-books.  The  object  of  the  present  work  is  not  to 
marshal  an  imposing  array  of  facts  and  figures,  but  to 
show  in  as  a  clear  a  light  as  possible  the  basic  prin- 
ciples of  French  government  and  French  ideas  ;  I  want 
to  dispel  prejudice  rather  than  impart  information,  to 
redress  the  balance  where  it  is  faulty  and  to  show  both 
the  uncompromising  Briton  and  the  "  pessimist"  Briton 
that  French  systems  are  sober,  sound  and  logical,  in- 
spired throughout  by  common  regard  for  the  element- 
ary principles  of  humanity,  justice  and  mercy. 


98 


CHAPTER   VI 
REACTION 

THE  British  race  has,  on  the  whole,  been  fortunate 
in  its  kings.  This  is  probably  the  reason  for  the 
regret  so  frequently  expressed  when  reference  is  made 
to  the  Republican  form  of  government  in  France. 
Whether  or  not  the  British  are  naturally  in  favour  of 
personal  government  is  open  to  question  when  we  recall 
the  historic  attitude  of  the  Commons,  their  occasional 
truculence  and  their  habitual  dignity.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  loyalty  to  the  royal  line  is  the  rule  in  this  country, 
with  an  explicit  or  implied  proviso  that  private  liberties 
shall  be  respected.  If  we  knew  more  exactly  what  real 
freedom  is,  we  should  have  a  more  exact  idea  of  what  is 
meant  by  a  "  free  country."  The  British  and  the  Ameri- 
cans alike  brag  of  their  freedom,  and  both  races  look 
upon  themselves  as  ideal  examples  of  independence. 
Yet  British  liberty  and  American  liberty  are  very  differ- 
ent things,  and  are  qualified  by  very  different  evils — 
possibly  political  in  the  first  case  and  possibly  finan- 
cial in  the  second.  Thus  we  find  two  nations  under 
vastly  dissimilar  systems  preferring  the  same  claim. 

We  need  not  pursue  the  idea  further.  But  such 
thoughts  naturally  arise  when  one  hears  it  said  that  the 
French  enjoy  no  more  liberty  than  we  do  and  sometimes 
that  the  French  were  no  gainers  when  they  substituted 


99 


V 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Republican  for  Monarchic  rule.  This,  however,  is  not 
the  standpoint  from  which  criticisms  are  levelled  at  the 
French  system  ;  there  is  no  question  of  more  or  less 
liberty  but  of  a  vague  liking  for  a  certain  form  of 
government.  Modify  it  as  much  as  may  be  desired, 
personal  rule  has  certain  characteristics  which  cannot 
be  divorced  from  it,  however  much  it  may  be  hedged  in 
by  constitutional  safeguards  against  absolutism.  More 
or  less  intense  militarism,  pageantry  and  caste  differ- 
ences are  inherent  to  Monarchic  forms  of  government, 
and  these  particular  characteristics  are  clearly  popular 
with  the  majority  of  the  British  race. 

It  is  with  regard  to  these  externals  of  royalty  that 
opinions  are  expressed,  root  principles  of  government 
being  as  a  rule  left  aside,  because  it  is  well  known  that 
a  Liberal  Monarchy  and  a  hide-bound  Republic  may  be 
productive  of  analogous  political  results.  The  British 
are  loyal  to  their  kings,  and  it  is  unlikely  that  any  but 
a  small  section  would  be  willing  to  substitute  another 
regime  for  the  present  one.  This  is  in  great  part,  no 
doubt,  due  to  the  idiosyncrasy  of  the  born  Briton,  who 
clings  to  an  institution  because  it  is  old,  if  for  no  other 
reason.  Conservatism  is  hardly  a  party  tendency ;  it  is 
practically  a  national  trait.  Men  are  often  as  obsti- 
nately "  Radical "  as  they  are  obstinately  "  Tory,"  and 
that  for  no  particular  reason.  In  the  same  way  they 
cling  to  Monarchic  rule  without  questioning  it,  because 
it  seems  to  work  smoothly  and  has  never  been  oppres- 
sive in  itself;  the  majority  of  the  electors  being  unob- 
servant and  not  given  to  correlating  cause  with  its 
effect,  they  accept  the  accomplished  fact  and  look 
askance  at  any  system  foreign  to  accepted  ideas.  Thus 
the  French  Republic  is  not  favourably  regarded  because 

loo 


Reaction 

Great  Britain  is  a  Monarchy,  and  there  is  every  chance 
that,  if  Great  Britain  were  a  RepubHc  and  France  a 
Monarchy,  the  case  would  be  the  same. 

To  innate  conservatism  in  the  first  place,  we  can  trace 
a  portion  of  the  regret  so  often  expressed  by  the  British 
middle  classes  that  the  French  people  thought  fit  to  alter 
their  system  :  all  changes  are  odious  for  a  very  long 
time,  until  at  least  their  eruptive  origin  has  been  for- 
gotten. There  are,  however,  other  reasons  for  dis- 
approving of  the  Republic  itself,  apart  from  the  fact  that 
it  is  a  new-comer,  and  one  of  those  that  are  most 
frequently  heard  is  that  a  Republic  has  "  no  head." 
Liberty-loving  as  they  probably  are  at  heart,  the  British 
cling  to  the  idea  that  it  is  essential  to  have  a  leader, 
effective  or  nominal ;  they  may  strip  him  of  the 
elementary  attributes  of  leadership,  but  they  will  insist 
on  preserving  the  pious  fiction  that  they  are  controlled 
by  a  master  hand.  The  idea  of  "  King  People  "  makes 
no  true  appeal  for  them,  in  this  sense  that  they  are 
anxious  enough  for  the  People  to  be  King,  but  they  will 
not  hear  of  his  ascending  the  throne.  To  be  governed 
by  an  abstraction  is  not  attractive  to  them  :  they  must 
have  a  man  to  look  up  to,  a  statue  on  a  pedestal  to  ad- 
mire and  to  bow  to.  Hero  worship  is  a  national 
characteristic  in  Great  Britain,  from  schoolroom  to 
Parliament,  and  the  craving  for  it  must  be  satisfied.  If 
there  be  a  hero,  then  let  him  be  cheered  by  the  mob ;  if 
there  be  no  hero,  then  let  us  bow  to  the  scion  of  an 
illustrious  race  ;  such  appears  to  be  the  reasoning  of  the 
mass. 

I  do  not  wish  again  to  compare  Monarchic  and 
Republican  regimes ;  Monarchy  is  not  liberty,  but  are 
all  men,  are  even  the  majority  of  them,  fit  to  be  free  ? 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
King  People  is  a  noble  sound,  but  is  the  People  worthy 
of  the  purple?  If  all  men,  or  the  bulk  of  them,  were 
educated,  thoughtful  and  open-minded,  personal  rule 
would  be  ridiculous  ;  in  the  present  state  of  things  one 
is  inclined  to  wonder  whether  they  are  not  too  free  as 
they  are.  Whether  the  conferring  of  liberty  makes  a 
man  more  fit  to  use  it  is  not  certain,  but  to  enfranchise 
him  is  often  worth  the  risk  ;  if  side  issues,  such  as  the 
creation  of  an  aristocracy,  did  not  influence  the  problem, 
it  would  be  impossible  for  the  unprejudiced  to  form  a 
clear  opinion  :  on  these  side  issues  the  differences  arise 
and  men  are  marshalled  into  their  respective  camps 
without  giving  much  consideration  to  the  banners  that 
float  above  them.  Are  there,  however,  good  grounds 
for  the  contention  that  the  French  Republic  has  no 
"  head  "  ?  It  would  be  easy  to  put  the  previous  question 
to  the  critic  and  request  him  to  prove  that  the  British 
Empire  has  a  "  head  "  in  the  sense  that  Germany  has, 
but  such  a  course  is  unnecessary.  A  state  has  or  has 
not  a  "  head,"  according  to  the  character  of  the  man  who 
nominally  occupies  the  position  ;  regalia  are  not  evidences 
of  power,  they  are  only  its  attributes.  A  king  un- 
crowned is  still  a  king  and  a  weakling  seated  on  high  is 
still  a  weakling ;  thus  we  find  that  Republican  rule  has 
not  only  as  good  a  chance  as  a  Monarchy  of  producing 
a  true  head  of  the  state,  but  a  better  one,  for  a  Mon- 
archic system  must  accept  that  which  kingly  birth  gives 
it,  whereas  the  Republic  can  choose  its  most  eminent 
and  forceful  man.  It  would  be  absurd  to  contend  that 
the  occupants  of  certain  thrones,  either  shorn  of  their 
power  or  the  sport  of  favourites,  the  butt  of  conspirators 
and  the  prey  of  foreign  bankers,  are  in  any  sense  to  be 
compared   as   regards   influence  and  power  with  such 

1 02 


Reaction 

magnificent  dictators  as  President  Roosevelt  or  Presi- 
dent Diaz. 

It  is  not  given  to  every  state  and  to  every  period  to 
produce  a  Diaz  or  a  Roosevelt,  any  more  than  it  is 
given  to  all  dynasties  to  produce  a  William  the  Con- 
queror, a  Peter  the  Great  or  a  Napoleon  ;  this  must  not 
be  forgotten  if  we  wish  to  refute  satisfactorily  the 
arguments  of  the  Monarchist.  What  is  the  position 
when  the  occupant  of  the  throne  is  not  a  forceful  man, 
such  a  man,  in  short,  that,  had  he  not  inherited  his  title, 
the  people  would  have  invested  him  with  it?  It  is 
analogous  for  the  thoughtful  man,  however  different  it 
may  appear  ;  the  French  presidents  have  none  of  them, 
except  M.  Thiers,  been  men  of  outstanding  ability, 
though  they  were  every  one  men  worthy  of  popular 
respect ;  as  a  rule  they  have  been  selected  because  they 
were  acceptable  to  a  majority,  not  because  they  com- 
pelled a  majority.  Thus,  they  did  not  realise  the  con- 
ditions enounced  in  the  postulatum  to  these  remarks, 
namely,  that  they  should  be  "  heads  "  because  they  were 
naturally  fit  to  be  so.  In  this  case  another  force  steps 
in  ;  even  the  Roosevelts  and  the  Diaz  do  not  govern  by 
pure  personal  magnetism  ;  behind  them  is  the  power  of 
the  people.  They  dominate  their  master  and  cause  it 
by  sheer  force  of  character  to  become  their  servant,  but 
they  do  not  enslave  it  for  ever,  nor  do  they  escape  the 
animosity  of  an  energetic  minority ;  behind  the  power 
of  the  man  there  is  the  power  of  the  nation  ;  without 
the  nation  the  man  would  be  nothing;  without  the  man 
the  nation  would  be  as  great  a  force. 

When  the  occupant  of  the  presidential  chair  is  not  a 
man  of  outstanding  ability,  when  he  has  no  reserves  of 
strength  for  an  emergency,  he  still  possesses  the  power 

103 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

that  the  nation  has  given  him  ;  he  may  not  be  a  leader, 
but  he  is  the  chosen  of  the  people,  the  man  on  whom 
they  have  conferred  a  supreme  honour ;  above  all  things 
he  is  unique.  There  may  be  but  one  King,  but  there  is 
also  but  one  President ;  the  first  holds  his  position  with 
the  approval  of  the  people,  the  latter  by  the  will  of 
the  people ;  the  President  passes  while  the  King  re- 
mains, but  Kings  die  and  Presidents  change  and  long 
or  short  periods  of  leadership  do  not  affect  the  ques- 
tion. All  power  is  vested  in  the  people  ;  whether  it  be 
forced  into  acknowledging  a  conqueror  and  accepting 
the  suzerainty  of  his  line,  whether  it  be  cajoled  into 
recognising  the  leadership  of  an  artful  and  ambitious 
man  or  whether  it  deliberately  select  a  chief,  temporary 
or  permanent,  the  people  alone  possesses  the  privilege 
of  government,  the  right  to  delegate  it  and  the  power 
to  alter  its  form.  Thus,  whoever  the  ruler  may  be,  as 
he  is  necessarily  the  trustee  of  the  rights  of  the  nation, 
it  is  practically  immaterial  whether  he  be  selected  or 
not,  for  by  the  will  of  the  people  alone  shall  he  rule. 

The  influence  of  the  leader  may  be  immense,  though 
it  is  often  insignificant  enough  ;  this  is  hardly  recog- 
nised by  the  detractors  of  the  Republican  regime,  who 
lay  to  its  charge  another  evil  as  formidable  as  the 
absence  of  a  "  head  "  ;  they  state  that  Republicanism 
spells  lack  of  culture  and  that  France  has  lost  much 
in  discarding  her  Kings  and  their  court.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  a  Monarch  has  in  himself  an  immense 
capacity  for  good  work  in  this  direction ;  his  great 
prestige,  the  fact  that  many  of  his  subjects  watch  his 
every  action,  follow  his  lead  and  even  go  so  far  as  to 
imitate  his  style  of  dress,  all  tend  to  give  him  the 
power  of  influencing  if  not  of  guiding  the  times  in 

104 


Reaction 

which  he  lives.  A  King  who  is  a  lover  of  the  arts  and 
of  culture  in  general  can  develop  an  atmosphere  which 
may  slowly  diffuse  itself  through  the  entire  body 
politic  ;  he  may  be  a  refining,  a  civilising  factor.  This, 
we  find,  has  been  the  case  in  all  countries,  in  Great 
Britain  under  the  Stuarts,  in  France  under  practically  all 
the  Kings  from  1500  to  1750,  and  even  in  Prussia  in  the 
eighteenth  century ;  conversely  we  find  the  influence 
dormant  under  the  Georges,  as  we  do  under  the  Bour- 
bons of  the  nineteenth  century.  No  one  will  deny  the 
greatness  of  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV,  for  instance:  it 
is  the  Augustan  period  of  the  arts  in  Europe ;  yet  it  is 
permissible  to  say  that  a  Republican  system  does  not 
exclude  the  fostering  of  culture.  A  King  can  extend 
valuable  patronage  to  the  arts  ;  in  addition  to  his  per- 
sonal influence  he  has  at  his  disposal  large  sums  of 
money  and  social  distinctions  of  all  sorts  ;  his  court 
will  be  all  the  more  brilliant  if  it  include  men  of  learn- 
ing as  well  as  the  scions  of  his  nobles  ;  the  protection 
thus  extended  to  the  national  brain  will  enable  it  to 
produce  its  noblest  fruits.  A  Republic  has  no  court, 
but  it  has  all  the  power  that  a  King  possesses  in  this 
respect ;  it  can  grant  pensions  to  individuals,  subsidies 
to  institutions  and,  far  better  than  can  a  Monarch,  develop 
in  its  schools  and  universities  dormant  talent  of  which 
the  ruler  could  never  have  been  cognisant. 

The  foregoing  are  purely  general  points  ;  the  charge 
is  specific  and  absolutely  baseless.  It  is  not  contended 
that,  at  the  present  time,  France  possesses  an  elite 
comparable  with  that  which  honoured  the  court  of 
Francois  I,  but  is  the  Republic  responsible?  Is  the 
German  Government  answerable  for  there  being  no 
Wagner,  the   British   Government  for  there  being  no 

105 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
Shakespeare?  None  will  assert  it,  and  yet  it  is  sug- 
gested that  France  is  not  what  it  was  and  that  the 
Republic  has  killed  the  arts.  Most  emphatically,  this 
is  untrue ;  the  roll  of  honour  of  the  French  race  has 
been  inscribed  during  the  last  thirty  years  with  many 
names  that  will  not  be  forgotten  ;  is  it  necessary  to 
mention  Massenet  and  Saint-Saens,  Manet,  Rodin  or 
Bartholome,  or  Guy  de  Maupassant  or  Zola?  True, 
there  is  not  a  Voltaire  or  a  Balzac,  but  have  we  a 
Gainsborough  or  a  Johnson  ?  There  have  been  times 
when  there  were  more  geniuses,  but  there  have  been 
none  when  so  many  men  w^ere  capable  of  good  work 
and  when  so  many  more  were  able  to  appreciate  it. 
At  the  present  time,  all  over  the  world,  there  is  a  dearth 
of  genius,  but  there  is  a  plethora  of  talent ;  perhaps 
even  there  may  be  genius  which  is  not  yet  revealed  to 
us.  And  of  this  talent  France  has  more  than  her  full 
share ;  her  music  may  not  equal  that  of  the  Slavs,  her 
literature  that  of  the  British  ;  for  argument's  sake  let 
us  even  admit  the  untrue,  viz.  that  some  nation  surpasses 
France  in  the  arts  of  painting  and  architecture,  and 
when  we  consider  culture  as  an  entity  the  irresistible 
conviction  is  forced  upon  us  that,  now  as  ever,  France 
leads  the  world  in  the  realms  of  art.  The  genius  exists 
in  the  people,  not  in  their  government,  and  genius  will 
out. 

But  we  can  go  further  yet ;  it  is  a  fact  that  the  arts 
are  flourishing,  not  in  spite  of  the  Republic,  but  thanks 
to  it.  Let  the  British  detractor  of  the  French  regime 
compare  the  state  of  things  in  Monarchic  Britain  and 
Republican  France.  Let  him,  in  this  country,  seek  out 
the  Ministry  of  Fine  Arts  :  he  will  seek  in  vain  ;  he  will 
find  the  National  Gallery  everlastingly  short  of  funds, 

1 06 


Reaction 

street  improvements  left  to  the  tender  mercies  of  elected 
county  or  borough  councillors,  official  architecture  to 
nobody  in  particular.  In  France,  on  the  contrary,  these 
matters  have  been  thought  so  important  that  a  Cabinet 
Minister  is  appointed  to  supervise  them  and,  with  the 
aid  of  an  expert  staff,  he  watches  with  keen  eyes  over 
the  beauties  of  the  land.  In  this  country  we  find  the 
stage  handed  over  to  the  American  musical-comedy- 
monger  or  to  the  self-advertising  actor-manager  ;  in 
Paris  two  national  theatres,  of  Monarchic  creation  it  is 
true,  but  maintained  by  the  Republic,  preserve  the 
classical  tradition  and  affix  to  high-class  modern  plays, 
as  the  greatest  of  artistic  honours,  the  seal  of  their 
approval ;  in  Great  Britain  again,  in  this  most  musical 
of  countries,  the  production  of  an  opera  is  a  risk  and 
cannot  be  indulged  in  freely  because  a  few  fiascos  would 
ruin  a  season  ;  in  Paris  we  find  two  State-aided  opera- 
houses,  where  again  the  great  classical  tradition  is  pre- 
served and  new  works  are  staged  without  endangering 
the  exchequer  of  a  producer.  In  the  presence  of  all 
this,  can  it  be  said  that  the  Republic  does  not  favour  the 
arts  ?  It  facilitates  the  education  of  their  exponents  by 
the  Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts,  showers  distinctions  upon 
them  and  surrounds  them  with  an  atmosphere  of  appre- 
ciation in  which  they  can  develop  to  the  full. 

I  have  consciously  allowed  myself  to  digress,  because 
it  is  essential  to  shov/  how  deep  is  the  error  of  those  who 
contend  that  a  democratic  regime  is  not  favourable  to 
the  increase  of  culture.  Strictly  speaking,  it  is  more 
propitious  as  regards  the  masses  of  the  people,  for  its 
aim  is  to  raise  them,  while  the  object  of  aristocratic 
castes  is  usually  to  preserve  their  state  of  ignorance,  so 
as  to  keep  them  down.     The  evidence  I  have  adduced 

107 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

should  prove  that  the  tree  of  knowledge  can  bloom 
under  the  Republic  and  that  it  can  bear  the  fairest 
of  fruits  ;  no  sympathy  must  be  wasted  on  Reaction 
simply  because  its  object  is  reversion  to  a  dead  system. 
Reaction  will  not  add  one  iota  to  the  stature  of  the 
French  race,  let  alone  the  cubit  that  lovers  of  personal 
rule  anticipate.  Their  opinion  is,  however,  not  all- 
important  ;  the  test  is  French  feeling  in  the  matter. 
Foreign  critics  should  always  remember  that  a  nation  is 
the  best  judge  of  its  own  affairs  before  they  prescribe 
for  its  supposed  ailments ;  it  is  therefore  essential  that 
we  should  obtain  an  idea  of  the  attitude  of  the  people 
with  regard  to  Reaction  and  of  the  prospects  of  a 
return  to  past  systems  of  government. 

Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  the  French 
attitude  on  the  subject  is  one  of  indifference ;  were  it 
one  of  hostility  there  would  be  more  hope  for  Royalists 
and  Bonapartists,  for  the  hostile  can  be  converted  or 
outnumbered  by  new  recruits,  but  the  indifferent  who, 
in  France,  are  legion  are  beyond  the  reach  of  Reaction 
simply  because  they  do  not  want  to  trouble  themselves 
with  the  question. 

Spasmodic  interest  has  been  evinced  during  the  last 
ten  years,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Dreyfus  case,  the 
Deroulede  plot  and  the  anti- clerical  agitation,  but 
even  this  has  only  been  collateral  with  these  events. 
This  attitude  is  easily  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
Reactionaries  form  but  a  small,  if  clamorous,  minority. 
From  the  Revolution  to  the  present  day,  popular  feeling 
has  been  antagonistic  to  caste  distinctions ;  a  witty 
pamphleteer  said  of  the  Frenchman  that  "  his  dream 
was  to  be  his  neighbour's  President,"  and  it  is  not 
untrue,  but  he  rarely  tries  to  establish  a  claim  to  bluer 

1 08 


Reaction 

blood.  The  Frenchman  is  usually  a  true  Republican, 
in  the  sense  that  he  thinks  himself  as  good  a  man 
as  any,  but  he  also  thinks  any  man  as  good  as  him- 
self. 

This  attitude  needed  no  fostering  by  the  State ;  the 
revolutionary  tradition  has  so  deeply  influenced  French 
education  and  character  that  the  Declaration  of  the 
Rights  of  Man  lives  more  truly  in  the  people  than 
the  rather  pompous  clarion  blast :  "  Libert^,  Egalit6, 
Fraternity,"  Yet  we  must  note  that  the  law  has  not 
pandered  to  caste  distinctions.  The  code  Napoleon, 
though  inspired  by  a  great  Reactionary,  did  not  venture 
to  go  back  on  revolutionary  principles ;  all  through  its 
political  vicissitudes  during  the  nineteenth  century  the 
French  State  preserved  this  attitude,  for  not  even 
Charles  X  or  Napoleon  III  ventured  to  break  away 
from  the  Imperial  precedent.  Thus,  when  the  Third 
Republic  came  into  being,  it  did  not  have  to  undo  the 
work  of  its  predecessors ;  it  only  adopted  a  more  un- 
compromising attitude  towards  titles.  At  the  present 
time,  no  titles  of  nobility  are  legally  recognised  by  the 
State,  registrars  of  births,  marriages  and  deaths 
making  a  practice  of  omitting  from  their  entries 
nobiliary  qualifications ;  there  is  a  shadowy  impression 
abroad  that  those  in  a  position  to  prove  their  direct 
descent  from  nobles  of  authentic  creation  have  a  legal 
right  to  their  titles,  an  impression  which  was  fortified 
by  an  ill-advised  proposal  to  tax  those  distinctions,  but 
no  law  on  the  statute  book  can  be  cited  in  support 
of  the  theory.  The  use  of  the  prefix  "de"  is  allowed, 
not  as  a  title  however,  but  as  part  of  the  name ;  no  dis- 
tinction attaches  to  its  use.  Indeed,  in  a  country  where 
ridicule   is   said   to    kill,   the   prospects  of  "de"  were 

109 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

apparently  blighted  by  the  happy  hnes  telling  how 
a  yeoman,  on  distinction  bent, 

.  .  .  Entoura  son  domaine  d'un  fosse  bourbeux 
Et  de  Monsieur  de  I'lsle  prit  le  nom  pompeux  ! 

The  picture  of  the  muddy  ditch,  surrounding  the  farm 
and  conferring  upon  the  owner  the  name  "of  the  Isle," 
is  a  happy  expression  of  French  feeling  on  the  subject. 

Class  distinctions  do  exist  in  France  to  a  certain 
extent,  but  they  are  created  by  differences  of  education 
and  of  fortune ;  thus  the  attitude  of  these  classes 
towards  the  French  noblesse  varies  to  some  extent. 
The  working  class  is  frankly  hostile  to  the  "  aristos,"  a 
word  often  used  by  them  as  an  insult.  It  should  be 
said  that  the  French  workman  sees  very  little  difference 
between  the  marquis  and  the  bourgeois  and  that  he  has 
nowadays  a  tendency  to  sweep  into  a  common  limbo  of 
contempt  any  person  who  wears  a  black  coat. 

If  particular  hostility  is  directed  against  the  aristo- 
crats, it  is  usually  due  to  Socialistic  agitation  against 
the  leaders  of  the  Reactionary  party ;  of  late  years  we 
have  seen  the  lilies  lead  in  Parliament  the  clerical  and 
militarist  sections  against  the  united  forces  of  the  tri- 
colour and  the  red  flag.  Naturally  enough,  political 
hatred  has  turned  to  personal  hatred,  and  any  man 
who  bears  a  title  or  even  writes  the  modest  "  de " 
before  his  name  is  a  suspect ;  it  must  be  confessed  that 
his  political  leanings  usually  justify  this  suspicion.  As 
regards  the  bourgeoisie,  the  great  bulk  take  but  little 
interest  in  the  aristocrats ;  their  wives  do  not,  as  they 
would  in  Great  Britain,  devote  a  considerable  portion 
of  their  leisure  to  the  chronicling  of  births,  marriages, 
deaths  and  divorces   of   the   aristocrats :    nor  do   they 

no 


Reaction 

show  any  great  desire  to  acquire  for  their  daughters 
such  desirable  noble  husbands  as  the  Americans  may- 
leave  them.  The  bourgeois  are  usually  neither  for  nor 
against  the  noblesse  ;  they  do  not  seek  to  penetrate  into 
the  charmed  circle,  nor  do  they  wish  to  interfere  with 
its  existence.  The  richer  section,  particularly  the  new 
rich,  have  it  is  true  some  tuft-hunting  tendencies,  but 
even  among  this  class  they  are  not  very  marked ; 
matrimonial  alliances  are  not  very  frequent,  for  the 
aristocrats  are  usually  poor  and  the  bourgeoisie,  though 
well-to-do,  does  not  look  upon  a  high-sounding  name  as 
good  value  for  its  money. 

The  attitude  of  the  Government  reflects  that  of  its 
supporters;  for  the  first  twenty  years  after  the  foundation 
of  the  Third  Republic,  little  notice  was  taken  of  the 
noblesse.  They  were  distinguished  neither  by  favour  nor 
by  persecution  ;  perhaps,  if  anything,  the  balance  was 
slightly  in  their  favour,  as  the  French  Government  felt 
the  usefulness  of  selecting  for  foreign  embassies  men 
who  would  be  acceptable  to  Monarchic  governments. 
It  is  unlikely  that  this  state  of  things  would  have 
changed  had  not  the  noblesse  compromised  itself  actively 
with  the  so-called  "  Nationahst "  movement.  The 
Nationalist  party  includes  Republican  and  pseudo-Re- 
publican elements,  strongly  tinged  with  clericalism  and 
militarism  ;  many  Nationalists  advocate  the  selection  of 
the  President  by  referendum,  which  amounts  to  choosing 
a  dictator.  The  last  French  plebiscite  gave  Napoleon 
III  to  the  nation  and  is  said  to  have  been  shamefully 
gerrymandered,  yet  it  is  to  this  system  that  many  Na- 
tionalists owe  allegiance.  Finding  themselves  too  weak 
when  isolated,  Reactionaries  of  the  Royalist  and  Bona- 
partist  sections  gravitated  naturally  towards  this  group 

III 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

and  became  prominent  in  its  ranks.  From  1895  to  this 
day  they  have  been  practically  identified  as  regards  a 
policy  which  is  mainly  one  of  "  against  any  Government 
proposal."  For  this  reason,  the  benevolent  attitude  of 
the  Republican  Government  has  changed  ;  seeing  its 
most  vigorous  enemies  among  the  aristocrats,  finding 
them  in  the  van  of  clerical  agitation,  it  keeps  a  very 
tight  hand  over  their  action  and  a  strict  watch  over 
their  movements.  It  is  not  likely  that  friendly  co-opera- 
tion will  ever  again  be  possible  between  the  democratic 
regime  and  the  avowed  enemies  of  the  Republic ;  this, 
however,  should  not  cause  much  anxiety  to  the  Govern- 
ment, as,  to  all  political  intents  and  purposes,  the 
Royalist  and  Bonapartist  parties  are  dead  and  the 
Reactionaries  dwindling  fast.  The  figures  given  in  this 
chapter  will,  I  believe,  triumphantly  demonstrate  the 
truth  of  this  statement. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  Royalists  and  Bonapartists  have 
no  power  to  speak  of  and  that  for  two  reasons.  Influence, 
that  most  subtle  and  insidious  of  forces,  is  always  trace- 
able to  a  superiority,  either  of  intelligence  or  of  wealth  ; 
power,  in  its  brutal  sense,  may  be  found  in  the  hands  of 
the  incompetent,  thanks  to  a  concourse  of  circumstances, 
in  virtue  of  expediency  or  by  favour  of  unlimited 
audacity,  but  influence,  all-pervading  and  all-embracing, 
is  the  privilege  of  the  superior.  Shorn  of  power  by  the 
Third  Republic,  Royalists  and  Bonapartists  might  have 
retained  this  shadowy  but  valuable  asset,  if  the  principal 
sources  of  influence  were  not  denied  them.  Education 
is  no  longer  their  preserve,  since  all  classes  have  pene- 
trated more  and  more  into  the  Government  public 
schools  and  into  the  Government  universities;  equality 
of  knowledge  does  away  with  the  mainstay  of  usurpa- 

112 


Reaction 

tory  power.  Thus,  the  cheapness  and  accessibility  of 
all  grades  of  education  having  thrown  wide  open  the 
gates  of  knowledge,  the  prestige  of  the  "  upper  "  classes 
has  declined  to  such  an  extent  as  to  nullify  the  appella- 
tion. But  education  is  only  the  second  of  the  two  most 
powerful  sources  of  influence  ;  wealth  is  at  least  as 
important.  The  rich  man,  who  holds  in  his  hands  the 
destinies  of  a  country,  who  may  at  will  hunt  out  of  the 
district  a  tenant  whose  political  views  are  distasteful  to 
him  (and  such  cases  are  not  unknown  in  modern  British 
history),  possesses  a  weapon  the  efficacy  of  which  is 
painfully  obvious ;  even  should  he  be  a  man  of  punctili- 
ous rectitude,  the  golden  glamour  that  attaches  to  his 
name  and  the  state  in  which  he  lives  invest  him  with 
notoriety  of  a  special  kind,  cause  him  to  be  heard 
respectfully  and  followed,  if  not  by  sturdy  opponents, 
at  least  by  the  mass  of  the  undecided.  Such  is  often  the 
case  in  Great  Britain,  where  the  problem  of  influence  is 
further  complicated  by  the  political  power  wielded  by 
the  Peers,  who  are  usually  great  landlords ;  such  is  not 
the  case  in  France,  where  great  estates  are  the  exception, 
not  the  rule. 

In  France  we  find  an  impoverished  nobility,  living  in 
proud  isolation  in  gloomy  castles,  often  in  a  wing  which 
is  all  they  can  afford  to  keep  open,  on  the  scanty  pro- 
duce of  small  estates  ;  too  proud  to  enter  the  field  of 
commerce  or  of  industry,  the  only  professions  open  to 
them  are  the  army  and  the  navy  ;  too  poor  to  fraternise 
with  the  wealthy  bourgeois  whom  they  despise,  they  live 
in  self-centred  solitude,  dying  hard,  with  something  of 
the  sullen  splendour  of  the  wild  boar  at  bay.  They 
have  no  money  for  electioneering,  above  all  for  keeping 
up  the  local  position  that  is  necessary  if  they  are  to 

I  113 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
succeed  at  the  poll ;  thus  they  are  of  no  account  in  their 
district  and  can  only  arouse  the  hatred  of  all  classes,  of 
the  bourgeois  stung  to  the  quick  by  their  disdain,  of  the 
sturdy  artisan  who  has  no  fancy  for  names  prefaced  with 
a  title. 

He  who  lacks  money  "  may  not  spede,"  and  such  is 
the  fate  of  the  French  aristocrat.  Of  those  who  have 
settled  in  Paris,  a  section  has  degenerated  and  lost  its 
last  claim  to  superiority.  So  long  as  a  man  or  a  class 
wilfully  abstain  from  mingling  with  other  men  or 
classes,  their  arrogance  may  ultimately  be  recognised 
as  justified ;  so  long  as  man  is  alone  he  is  strong,  but 
as  soon  as  he  condescends  he  falls  ;  such  has  been  the 
fate  of  this  section  of  the  aristocrats  who,  by  mixing 
with  the  moneyed  classes  whom  they  despise,  by  selling 
their  titles  in  marriage  and  entering  as  directors  into 
businesses  they  do  not  profess  to  understand,  have 
covered  themselves  with  discredit.  True,  another  sec- 
tion still  lives  in  proud  isolation  in  old  and  gloomy 
palaces  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Seine,  in  an  atmosphere 
of  attar  of  roses  and  plots ;  there  can  still  be  found, 
feeble  and  courteous,  the  remains  of  the  once  tyrannous 
dominating  class.  They  still  nurse  the  fond  illusion 
that  the  lilies  may  yet  wave  over  Versailles  ;  amiable 
and  pathetic,  but  not  dangerous. 

In  a  few  districts  of  France  their  power  still  survives  ; 
Brittany  has  never  entirely  fallen  away  from  its  old 
allegiance,  nor  has  the  Vendee,  since  the  days  when  the 
soldiers  of  the  First  Republic,  under  Hoche  and  Mar- 
ceau,  fought  a  bloody  war  for  the  triumph  of  the  tri- 
colour. Beyond  these  two  provinces  the  Royalists  still 
retain  some  influence  in  a  few  scattered  constituencies, 
where  their  power  is  steadily  crumbling  away  under  the 

114 


Reaction 

onslaught  of  Republicans  and  Socialists.  The  sun, 
emblem  of  Louis  XIV,  is  setting. 

The  state  of  things  has  been  reflected  at  the  polls 
during  the  last  ten  years  ;  in  1898,  in  1902,  in  1906,  the 
elections  for  the  Lower  House  have  resulted  in  ever 
more  decisive  Royalist  defeats ;  the  Bonapartists  no 
longer  openly  exist  in  Parliament ;  the  Nationalists  re- 
ceived a  final  and  crushing  blow  in  1906.  Whether  we 
take  as  a  basis  the  seats  obtained  or  the  votes  cast 
we  must  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  ;  at  the  present 
time,  out  of  591  members  of  the  Lower  House,  only 
twenty-five  put  themselves  forward  as  Royalists,  a  num- 
ber to  which  we  may  add  a  few  Reactionaries  masquerad- 
ing under  the  name  of  Nationalists  or  Conservatives  ; 
in  1906,  out  of  a  total  vote  of  8,832,000,  the  Royalists 
aggregated  291,800,  say  3  per  cent  of  the  total  poll.  In 
either  case,  therefore,  we  can  look  upon  theirs  as  a  lost 
cause  ;  if  evolution  is  at  work,  it  is  certainly  not  in  their 
direction  :  politically  speaking  the  party  is  dead,  and 
only  proves  a  source  of  disorder  and  discontent. 

As  regards  the  Bonapartists,  the  position  is  similar 
but  worse  ;  they  have  no  avowed  spokesman  in  the 
Lower  House  and  no  obvious  following ;  there  is  every 
indication  that,  whereas  the  Royalists  still  retain  a 
feeble  hold  on  the  districts  that  were  once  under  a 
beneficent  feudal  rule,  the  Bonapartists,  scattered  all 
over  the  country,  could  make  themselves  heard  only  in 
the  case  of  a  referendum,  to  which  the  bulk  of  the 
Nationalists  are  pledged.  Their  hope  lies  in  the  selec- 
tion of  their  Pretender  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency 
by  the  Nationalist  party,  in  the  event  of  their  triumph. 
Thus  the  Bonapartist  vote  must  be  sought  for  in  the 
Nationalist  total  or  in  that  of  the  Conservatives  with 

"5 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

whom  they  side  in  default  of  a  Bonapartist  candidate ; 
generally  speaking  the  Nationalists  can  be  put  down  as 
the  Reactionary  militarists  and  the  Conservatives  as 
the  Reactionary  clericals.  These  two  parties  collect 
Royalist  and  Bonapartist  votes :  should  they  ever 
succeed  in  their  quixotic  tilts  at  windmills  and  upset 
the  Republic,  an  immediate  break-up  of  the  coalition 
would  of  course  take  place.  How  remote  that  possi- 
bility is  appears  from  the  following  figures. 

In  1906  an  abnormally  heavy  poll  and  an  unusually 
varied  body  of  candidates  enabled  the  electors  to  cast 
their  vote  as  nearly  as  possible  in  exact  conformity  with 
their  views ;  thus,  out  of  about  1 2,000,000  voters  nearly 
9,000,000  went  to  the  poll — which,  as  any  British 
electioneer  will  testify,  is  a  large  proportion.  Out  of 
this  figure  the  imposing  total  of  6,275,000  votes  were 
cast  in  favour  of  Republican  candidates  of  various 
shades  and  of  Socialists  whose  hostilit}^  to  the  Royalist 
party  cannot,  of  course,  be  challenged  ;  over  and  above 
this  total,  1,072,000  votes  went  to  the  Liberals,  who  are, 
generally  speaking,  Republicans  of  an  old-fashioned 
type  recruited  among  the  provincial  urban  middle  class. 
The  attitude  of  this  section  is  mainly  one  of  opposition 
to  Socialism  ;  their  vote  is  rather  economic  than  poli- 
tical but,  in  a  general  way,  it  may  be  asserted  that, 
though  they  would  be  unlikely  to  revolt  against  a 
Reactionary  coup  d'etat  if  their  interests  were  not 
menaced,  they  are  Republican  in  tendency.  Indeed, 
their  conservative  attitude  alone  would  wed  them  to 
the  existing  system,  simply  because  they  are  inimical 
to  all  political  upheavals ;  however,  for  fear  of  being 
taxed  with  optimism,  I  will  put  them  down  as  neutral 
and  leave  the  Republican  "bloc"  of  6,275,000  votes  to 

116 


Reaction 

deal  with  the  coalesced  Reactionaries.  The  Reactionary 
forces  polled  altogether  1,406,212  votes,  of  which  the 
Royalists  accounted  for  291,854,  the  Conservatives  for 
356,840,  and  the  Nationalists  for  757,518;  these  figures 
show  the  blackest  case  for  the  Republic,  since  many 
of  the  Conservatives  and  Nationalists,  priest  and 
soldier-ridden  as  they  may  be,  are  probably  Republican 
enough  in  spirit.  However,  if  we  waive  this  considera- 
tion we  find  that,  leaving  the  neutral  Liberals  out  of 
count,  out  of  every  five  electors,  four  voted  Republican 
without  doubt  or  reservation,  over  one-third  of  the 
Republican  aggregate  being  made  up  of  Socialist  or 
Socialistic  elements.  In  the  face  of  such  figures,  can 
any  one  contend  that  the  chances  of  Monarchic  reaction 
are  not  dead  ?  The  Republic  may  grow  more  Social- 
istic or  it  may  uphold  as  staunchly  as  ever  the  rights  of 
individual  ownership,  but  is  this  imposing  total,  attained 
to  in  spite  of  the  thirty-eight  years  that  have  elapsed, 
in  spite  of  the  doctrine  of  the  swing  of  the  pendulum, 
likely  to  dwindle  to  such  an  extent  as  to  give  the 
Reactionaries  the  slightest  ground  for  hope? 

They  cannot  even  hope  to  triumph  by  favour  of 
a  snap  vote;  at  the  present  time  the  Lower  House 
is  divided  into  the  Republican  "Bloc,"^  numbering  412^ 
members  and  the  Opposition  to  whom  170^  deputies  owe 
allegiance.  Thus,  even  on  non-constitutional  questions, 
such  as  Church  or  Army  matters,  two  deputies  out  of 
three  are  solidly  Republican  ;  were  a  Reactionary  con- 
stitution ever  proposed,  the  Opposition  would  at  once 
shrink  by  almost  two-thirds,  owing  to  the  defection  of  the 

^  The  split  between  Radicals  and  Socialists  has  endangered  the  "Bloc," 
but  it  is  solid  on  constitutional  questions. 
-  According  to  their  election  addresses. 

117 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Progressive  Republicans  and  Liberals,  when  its  position 
would  become  absurd.  For  the  sake  of  convenience, 
I  will  give  here  a  table  showing  how  the  votes  were 
cast  in  1906  : — 


Republicaji 

''Bloc:' 

Opposition. 

Republicans     . 

i>3i5.773     • 

.     Progressive 

Radicals  . 

1,631,957     . 

Republicans    .     967,069 

Socialistic 

.     Liberals     .         ,   1,072,396 

Radicals 

1,265,985     . 

.     Nationalists        .      757,518 

Socialists 

1,083,172     . 

.     Conservatives     .      356,840 
Royalists    .         .      291,854 

Say, 

5,296,000 

Say,     3,445.000 

It  will  be  noted  in  the  first  place  that  these  two  totals 
do  not  tally  with  the  total  poll  of  8,832,862  ;  the  differ- 
ence is  made  up  by  some  90,000  votes  given  to  In- 
dependents in  various  districts,  and  represented  in  the 
House  by  two  members  only.  As  regards  the  dis- 
crepancy between  the  Republican  total  of  6,275,000  and 
the  "  Bloc  "  total  of  5,296,000,  the  difference  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that,  at  the  present  time,  Progressive  Re- 
publicans vote  with  the  Reactionaries,  though  remain- 
ing true  to  the  basic  principles  of  the  Republican 
creed. 

The  difference  between  Republican  and  "  Bloc  "  voters 
lies  solely  in  the  fact  that  the  "  Bloc "  unites  all  the 
more  advanced  elements  of  the  party  into  a  compact 
mass,  in  whose  hands,  since  M.  Waldeck-Rousseau's 
ministry,  the  destinies  of  the  country  have  been  placed  ; 
ever  since  1900  it  has  been  solid,  not  even  the  reaction 
against  M.  Combes  or  the  misfortunes  of  M.  Delcasse 
having  disrupted  it. 

118 


Reaction 

Whether,  therefore,  we  consider  constitutional  or 
non-constitutional  questions,  the  prospects  of  the  Re- 
actionaries are  hopeless  ;  in  the  latter  case  they  are  out- 
numbered by  at  least  five  to  three,  in  the  former  by  four 
to  one.  The  unlikelihood  of  a  change  is  evidenced  by 
the  ever-increasing  tendency  to  extremism  that  mani- 
fests itself  in  France  as  in  most  other  European 
countries ;  the  growth  of  Socialism  and  its  influence  on 
the  immediately  overlying  strata  of  society  are  not 
likely  to  bring  back  to  power  clerical  or  militarist 
elements  and  still  less  the  Monarchic  parties.  Again 
let  it  be  affirmed :  Reaction  in  France  is  dead  and 
buried.  The  last  elections  for  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
having  been  held  in  1906,  the  country's  feelings  cannot 
be  tested  by  the  same  means  until  1910;  the  results  in 
1906  fully  endorsed  the  past  policy  of  the  Government 
and  the  elections  of  the  Conseils  Generaux  in  1907  were 
noteworthy  because  they  re-affirmed  the  1906  mandate, 
in  spite  of  M.  Clemenceau's  vigorous  treatment  of  the 
Church.  Out  of  1439  seats,  11 58  are  now  held  by  the 
"Bloc"  and  only  281  by  the  Opposition;  the  results 
show  that  the  "Bloc"  registered  a  gain  of  loi  seats. 
If  we  remember  that  the  members  of  the  Cofiseils 
Generaux  are  among  the  electors  of  the  Senate,  we 
realise  at  once  the  complete  debacle  of  the  Reaction- 
aries. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  something  must  be  said  of 
the  various  parties  that  form  the  "Bloc"  and  its  Opposi- 
tion. Strictly  speaking,  this  classification  should  be 
incorporated  in  one  of  the  chapters  devoted  to  the 
Republican  idea,  but  the  undesirability  of  scattering 
figures  or  of  repeating  them  must  serve  to  excuse  the 
digression. 

119 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

The  "  Bloc  "  itself  is  a  new  creation,  the  word  having 
been  coined  by  M.  Waldeck-Rousseau.  Before  its 
formation  the  Lower  House  was  divided  roughly  into 
three  sections :  the  Left,  comprising  the  advanced 
elements,  such  as  Socialists  and  extreme  Radicals  ;  the 
Right,  comprising  the  Reactionaries  of  various  shades  ; 
and  the  Centre,  a  middle  party  solidly  Republican  in 
tendency  and  of  moderate  views.  In  those  days  the 
Centre  was  not  usually  powerful  enough  to  constitute  a 
Ministry,  but  no  Cabinet  could  live  without  its  support: 
it  served  as  a  brake  on  extremism  and  tempered  Reac- 
tion in  case  of  need.  Theoretically  the  system  was 
excellent,  but  in  practice  it  meant  very  unstable  Minis- 
tries. The  position  will  be  best  understood  if  it  be 
imagined  that,  in  the  British  House  of  Commons,  an 
equal  number  of  Conservatives  and  Liberals  were 
returned,  leaving  the  Irish  party  to  give  a  casting  vote. 
I  believe  that  it  will  be  agreed  that  this  position  would 
be  painful ;  and  that  was  exactly  the  outcome  of  the 
attitude  of  the  Centre. 

When  the  Dreyfus  case  was  revived  and  it  appeared 
for  a  moment  that  the  existence  of  the  Republic  could 
be  endangered,  it  was  found  necessary  to  consolidate 
the  advanced  elements  into  one  party,  which  became 
the  Republican  "  Bloc."  Thus  a  working  majority  was 
obtained  and  stability  at  last  attained.  At  the  present 
time  no  one  thinks  of  reviving  the  Centre  ;  there  are  no 
more  Laodiceans  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

The  "Bloc"  is  composed  of  Republicans,  Radicals, 
Socialistic  Radicals  and  Socialists.  They  support  such 
measures  as  disestablishment,  income  tax,  and,  up  to  a 
certain  point,  disarmament.  There  is,  of  course,  con- 
siderable divergence  of  views  between  the  component 


Reaction 

parties,  but  in  practice  they  effect  working  compromises 
— a  far  more  satisfactory  system  than  that  under  which 
we  see,  in  Great  Britain,  one  party  crush  the  other  for  a 
term  of  years,  after  which  the  process  is  reversed. 
RepubHcans  and  Radicals  are  in  favour  of  moderate 
social  reform,  whereas  Socialistic  Radicals  and  Social- 
ists are  either  willing  or  anxious  to  consider  such  ques- 
tions as  municipalising  or  nationalising  individual  pro- 
perty. To  all  intents  and  purposes  the  "Bloc"  is  there- 
fore united,  and  it  is  not  likely  to  break  up  until  the 
greater  questions  of  social  reform  come  to  the  fore.  The 
Opposition  comprises  mainly  the  Progressive  Republic- 
ans, the  Liberals,  the  Conservatives,  the  Nationalists 
and  the  Royalists.  The  first  four  sections  do  not  openly 
attack  the  Republican  institutions  ;  indeed,  the  Progres- 
sive Republicans  are  sound  to  the  core  on  constitutional 
questions.  As  regards  the  next  three  parties,  it  may  be 
said,  roughly,  that  they  are  practically  identical  in  views, 
except  that  the  Liberals  and  Conservatives  are  special- 
ised for  the  defence  of  the  "persecuted"  Church,  and 
the  Nationalists  for  the  defence  of  the  "menaced 
honour"  of  the  Army.  In  many  cases  identical  views 
were  expounded  by  candidates  bearing  different  party 
labels,  the  names  being  adopted  to  suit  local  needs. 

With  these  essential  notes  I  close  a  digression  which 
it  was  essential  to  make ;  it  is  the  natural  sequel  to 
analysis  of  parties  that  consideration  of  the  Reactionary 
prospects  presupposes.  Impartial  examination  of  the 
figures  of  the  recent  polls  must  bring  the  reader  to  the 
view  that  France  is  nowadays  Republican  to  the  back- 
bone and  more  firmly  wedded  than  ever  to  the  institu- 
tions that  spring  from  the  glorious  traditions  of  1789. 
The  colossus  does  not  stand  on  feet  of  clay  ;  its  pedestal 

121 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
is  the  great  mass  of  sober,  earnest,  thrifty  Frenchmen, 
who  are  anxious  to  see  their  land  developed  on  broad 
and  humane  lines  ;  they  do  not  want  to  go  too  fast  or 
too  far ;  they  detest  risky  social  experiments  as  much 
as  foreign  adventures  likely  to  embroil  the  country  in 
sterile  wars,  but  they  detest  still  more  the  prospect  held 
out  to  them  by  Reaction  of  a  return  to  a  pretorian  or 
to  a  spiritual  yoke. 


122 


CHAPTER   VII 
CHURCH   AND   STATE 

HE  would  have  been  a  bold  man  who,  in  the  nine- 
ties, ventured  to  prophesy  the  course  that  the 
impending  struggle  between  the  French  State  and  the 
French  Church  would  take,  and  his  prophecy  would 
have  been  received  with  the  jeers  which  are  usually  the 
wages  of  boldness.  In  those  days  a  historic  Church 
still  held  sway  over  French  souls  or,  at  least,  it  still  im- 
pressed the  lay  mind  with  the  pomp  of  its  services  and 
the  fervour  displayed  at  its  processions  and  pilgrimages. 
Acknowledged  by  the  State,  the  Roman  hierarchy  con- 
trolled absolutely  the  immense  body  of  the  faithful,  their 
deeds,  their  purses  and  even  their  thoughts ;  loved  by 
many  of  the  people,  accepted  with  respect  by  the  masses, 
it  could  afford  to  laugh  at  enemies  whose  sullen  threats 
appeared  wild  and  unworthy  of  notice.  The  Church 
stood  for  all  that  was  refined  and  aesthetic,  for  purity 
and  spiritual  charm :  indeed,  for  most  of  the  people  of 
France,  it  was  the  Mother-Church,  the  Mother  of  Souls. 
But  those  days  are  gone  and  the  scene  has  changed 
with  lightning  rapidity.  We  must  not  bewail  it,  if 
liberty  have  to  be  sacrificed  at  the  shrine  of  beauty, 
but  it  is  natural  and  human  to  regret  that  the  Church 
should  have  sunk  from  the  level  of  an  estate  of  the 
realm  to  that  of  a  hunted,  persecuted,  discredited  body, 

123 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

shepherdless  and  outlawed.  For  the  priests  are  as 
nearly  as  possible  outlaws ;  they  will  not  recognise  the 
will  of  the  State,  and  then,  as  the  State  must  live,  it 
must  strike.  No  longer  is  the  priest  in  France  the  ser- 
vant of  a  holy  church  ;  for  the  immense  majority  of  the 
people,  he  is  the  calotin.  The  very  sound  of  the  word 
is  opprobrious  ;  "  flatcap,"  as  the  London  apprentices 
used  to  say  in  days  of  old,  is  an  unpleasant  name  to 
apply  to  the  fathers  spiritual.  Yet  such  is  the  nickname 
that  has  fastened  on  the  priesthood  of  France  ;  for  the 
mass  of  the  people,  the  crow  is  now  the  emblem  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  And,  bitterest  thought  of  all, 
the  Church  of  Rome  has  brought  on  itself  the  wrath  of 
the  nation,  of  the  nation  that  was  once  "  the  eldest 
daughter  of  the  Church."  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
has  been  arraigned,  indicted  and  sentenced ;  it  is 
serving  its  time  to-day  and,  in  all  likelihood,  a  life 
penalty. 

No  advocate  has  spoken  in  the  heart  of  the  nation  ; 
men  who  are  not  with  the  Church  are  against  it,  and  its  • 
foes  are  legion.  France  is  not  irreligious  but  she  is 
estranged  from  Religion  and  every  day  widens  the  gulf 
that  separates  them.  So  much  has  been  written  on  the 
crusade  against  the  Cross,  that  I  will  not  venture  to 
enlarge  on  the  subject ;  every  important  review  has  had 
articles  on  the  troubles  that  have  parted  Church  and 
State  in  France,  some  of  them  from  the  pen  of  those 
most  authorised  to  speak,  statesmen  French  and  English, 
believers  and  iconoclasts.  And  thus  the  view  has  ap- 
parently taken  shape  that  we  see  in  the  French  a  nation 
of  atheists,  or  at  least  of  agnostics  ;  this  is  one  of  the 
half-truths  that  are  as  bad  as  untruths  because  they  are 
so  hard  to  controvert. 

124 


church  and  State 

Before  this  charge,  the  conscientious  Frenchman  feels 
like  the  debater  in  the  presence  of  one  who  is  his  master 
in  the  art  of  dialectics ;  foiled  at  every  point,  his  arguments 
refuted,  he  feels  that,  however  weak  his  case  may  seem, 
he  is  right  and  nevertheless  cannot  prevail.  The  very 
fact  that  the  French  are  a  Latin  race  presupposes  that 
they  have  within  themselves  depths  of  a  passionate 
religious  devotion  almost  beyond  conception.  All 
through  history  the  French  nation  has  been  in  the  van 
of  religious  movements,  from  the  First  Crusade,  when 
Peter  the  Hermit  carried  the  sword  of  the  avenging 
angel  ablaze  through  the  fields  of  France,  to  raise 
against  the  Saracen  the  holy  fury  of  Christianity,  to  the 
last  days  of  the  Eagles  when  a  French  guard  remained, 
in  a  hostile  country,  the  last  soldiers  of  the  Pope.  In 
no  other  land  has  religious  strife  been  so  bitter,  so  con- 
tinuous, as  it  has  been  in  France ;  the  horrors  of  the 
Inquisition,  the  burning  of  Servetus,  the  massacre  of 
the  Hussites,  the  stake  and  the  pillory  in  England,  all 
these  are  equalled  and  more  than  equalled  in  France 
where  religious  war  was  rife  for  a  hundred  years, 
religious  persecution  for  four  hundred.  Is  it  to  be 
believed  that  this  nation  can  have  turned  away  from 
Christianity?  It  is  incredible,  it  is  impossible:  it  has 
turned  away  from  the  Church  because  it  was  no  longer 
Christian,  and  Christianity  is  paying  the  price.  The 
French  are  not  irreligious ;  their  aesthetic  sense  alone 
would  preserve  them  from  ever  sinking  into  the  ugliness 
of  materialism,  but  they  ask  for  a  living  not  for  a  dead 
faith ;  they  are  a  nation  of  free  men  and  will  have  none 
of  a  creed  for  slaves ;  they  are  a  race  of  intellectuals  : 
a  faith  only  fit  for  dullards  is  not  for  them.  The  fact 
that  they  have  produced  fanatics  and  martyrs  by  the 

125 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
score  is  not  evidence ;  the  past  has  had  its  glories  but  it 
has  had  its  errors  too,  and  nothing  says  that  these 
magnificent  examples  of  self-destruction  were  anything 
but  sublime  folly.  But,  at  once,  our  attention  is  arrested 
by  a  singular  fact ;  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  does 
not  hold  undisputed  sway  even  among  the  faithful :  the 
worshippers  number  among  them  several  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  Protestants  and  Jews.  All-pervading  as 
was  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  could  not  wipe  out  these 
vigorous  and  heroic  sections ;  they  have  lived  through 
the  turmoil  and  emerged  into  peace.  Moreover,  among 
them  there  have  been  no  schisms,  no  revolts ;  these 
people  have  not  turned  away  from  their  spiritual  chiefs, 
but  have  clung  to  them  so  closely  that  their  strength 
has  remained  unimpaired  and  that,  to  this  day,  they 
retain  their  vigour.  Must  we  be  driven  to  conclude  that 
the  Jew  and  the  Protestant  are  more  spiritually  minded 
than  the  Catholic  ?  True,  the  Catholic  has  in  French 
history  been  the  persecutor  and  other  sections  the 
victims,  but  we  know  what  Catholics  have  suffered  in 
other  lands  and  can  conclude  that  they  would  have 
withstood  with  equal  fortitude  the  blows  of  Fate  in 
their  own  country.  Yet,  there  is  the  fact :  whereas  the 
Roman  Catholic  faith  has  lost  its  hold  upon  millions  of 
men  and  women,  other  denominations  have  retained  the 
support  of  every  one  of  their  members,  who  remained 
firm  in  spite  of  the  wave  of  atheism  or  agnosticism 
which  is  swamping  the  country. 

Can  it  be  explained  away  ?  Can  even  a  tentative 
explanation  be  offered  ?  I  doubt  it.  French  Protes- 
tants and  French  Jews  are  as  devout,  as  clean-living,  as 
spiritually  minded  as  are  our  most  enlightened  Church- 
men and  Nonconformists  ;  a  visit  to  any  Parisian  syna- 

126 


Church  and  State 

gogue  or  to  the  Oratory  will  demonstrate  in  a  moment 
that  the  French  have  not  forgotten  how  to  pray.  The 
congregations  are  as  large  as  ever  they  were,  and  they 
contain  as  great  a  proportion  of  men  as  in  England. 
This  distinction  of  sex  must  everywhere  be  made,  and 
particularly  in  France,  where  Roman  Catholicism  flaunts 
a  sumptuous  aestheticism,  voluptuous  and  worldly,  cap- 
able of  appealing  both  to  the  refined  and  to  the 
sensuous. 

Women  are  the  last  prop  of  the  French  Church; 
loyal  as  they  ever  are  to  all  lost  causes,  they  cling  even 
now  with  pathetic  energy  to  the  remnant  of  that  which 
once  was  great.  In  spite  of  the  Law,  in  spite  of  domestic 
influences,  many  still  worship  the  Church  and  nothing 
but  the  Church.  Can  we  refuse  them  sympathy?  No; 
but  we  must  face  this  fact,  that  the  men  have  deserted 
the  Church  and  that  nevermore  will  it  gather  in  again 
the  souls  it  has  lost.  French  Catholics  have  not  turned 
against  Christ :  they  have  turned  against  His  ministers 
because  they  have  found  them  unfaithful  servants — 
because  the  priest  has  given  them  a  stone  when  they 
asked  for  bread.  The  Church  is  dying,  dying  hard  but 
surely ;  the  people  have  turned  their  backs  on  its 
ministers  and,  though  not  yet  agnostics,  they  are  on 
the  threshold  of  agnosticism  and  the  Church  puts  forth 
no  hand  to  stay  them.  Another  generation  and  those 
that  were  devout  will  be  agnostics  ;  yet  another  genera- 
tion and  France  will  no  longer  be  a  Christian  State. 
And  that  because  the  Church  has  abused  its  trust 
instead  of  fulfilling  it. 

The  reasons  are  not  far  to  seek  and,  numerous 
though  they  be,  they  can  be  summed  up  in  the  word 
"  theocr^Cj:."     The  French  have  ever  been  impatient  of 

127 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

tyranny,  and  they  will  not  discriminate  between  secular 
and  spiritual  oppression.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
has  fallen  because  it  soared  too  high :  its  wings  were 
those  of  Icarus,  not  those  of  the  Archangel.  As  is  often 
the  case  with  established  churches,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  became  an  ossified  and  retrograde  body,  anti- 
quated in  its  methods,  out  of  touch  with  the  people, 
incapable  of  ministering  to  anything  more  than  their 
material  needs.  With  magnificent  contempt  it  has 
brushed  aside  the  power  of  the  State ;  it  has  refused  to 
listen  to  the  voice  of  the  faithful — and  they  are  faithful 
no  more. 

Thus,  is  it  wonderful  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
has  lost  its  hold  on  the  people?  Is  it  not  far  more 
wonderful  that  it  has  retained  it  for  so  long,  in  the  face 
of  ever-advancing  science  and  secular  philosophy?  The 
Catholic  Church  was  founded  for  the  poor  and  lowly  in 
spirit  :  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  remained  the 
Church  of  the  lowly  in  intellect.  It  has  amassed  against 
itself  every  possible  weapon  of  attack  ;  it  has  crowded 
its  ritual  and  tradition  with  everything  that  could  make 
it  repugnant  to  men  of  brains.  And,  as  the  French  are 
an  intelligent  people,  a  people  whose  intelligence  is  ever 
growing,  they  have  turned  against  the  Church.  The 
root  grievance,  as  regards  externals,  is  the  ritual.  For 
instance,  is  it  for  a  moment  admissible  that  the  Common 
Prayer  of  the  Church  in  France  should  be  conducted  in 
Latin  ?  A  relic  from  the  ancient  days,  when  dead 
languages  represented  the  sum  total  of  human  know- 
ledge, has  been  kept  alive  in  the  forcing-house  of  sacer- 
dotalism. Thus  we  see  the  people  confronted  with 
prayers  the  sometimes  abstruse  theology  of  which 
would  be  sufficient  to  baffle  the  lay  mind,  couched  in 

128 


Church  and  State 

addition  in  a  foreign  tongue ;  mechanically  and  by  dint 
of  repetition,  the  worshippers  acquire  a  general  idea  of 
their  meaning,  but  none  but  the  spiritually  minded  will 
go  further  than  that.  Is  this  an  appeal,  a  personal 
appeal  ? 

Moreover,  the  priest  has  abused  his  power  over  the 
superstitious  and  the  dull ;  the  iniquity  of  the  paid 
mass  for  the  rest  of  a  departed  soul,  the  picturesque 
ineptitude  of  a  votive  offering  in  the  shape  of  a  candle 
of  a  size  commensurate  with  the  magnitude  of  the 
blessing — can  anything  be  more  calculated  to  arouse 
the  thought  in  the  awakening  mind,  that  the  Church  is 
nothing  but  a  huge  money-making  concern,  an  instru- 
ment of  simony  ?  Little  by  little  the  French  peasants, 
the  French  workers  have  realised  this,  and  little  by 
little  they  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  folly 
to  throw  away  money,  hard-earned  and  well-beloved,  on 
sterile  practices  for  which  they  could  see  no  return.  And 
thus  they  began  to  think.  From  that  moment  they 
were  no  longer  Roman  Catholics,  in  so  far  that  they 
presumed  to  pit  their  poor  wits  against  those  of  their 
priests,  their  masters. 

A  startling  instance  of  this  attitude  of  obscurantism 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Decree  of  the  Holy  Roman  and 
Universal  Inquisition,  a  papal  commission  entrusted 
with  the  supervision  of  conscientious  belief  and  of  lay 
opinion  on  dogmatic  subjects.  This  Decree  is  dated 
3rd  July  1907  and  is  the  answer  of  the  Papacy  to  the 
anti-clerical  movement ;  it  is  so  recent  that  it  may  be 
taken  as  the  present  opinion  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  carries  weight  equally  with  the  decrees  that 
condemned  Galileo  and  Copernicus,  which  is  a  sugges- 
tive fact.  It  comprises  sixty-five  articles,  so  that  it  is 
K  129 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

impossible  to  quote  it  (71  extenso  ;  moreover,  these  articles 
do  not  deal  with  propositions  that  must  be  accepted 
but  with  propositions  which  the  Church  rejects,  which 
makes  it  somewhat  difficult  of  reading  ;  for  this  reason, 
in  the  following  translation,  I  have  inverted  the  phrasing, 
so  as  to  obtain  definite  statements  instead  of  forbidden 
doctrines. 

The  importance  of  the  Decree  is  so  remarkable  that 
some  of  the  articles  must  be  quoted  ;  most  are  concerned 
with  dogma  and  need  not  be  reproduced  in  the  present 
instance,  as  they  deal  purely  with  "heretical"  doctrines 
such  as  those  of  the  Protestant  churches,  but  a  certain 
number  are  of  considerable  interest  because  they  regu- 
late the  relations  between  the  Church  and  the  faithful. 
The  complete  document  was  published  in  extenso  in 
Demain,  a  Church  organ,  in  the  issue  for  26th  July 
1907.1 

Extract  from  the  preamble  : —  ^ 

".  .  .  It  is  to  be  deplored  that  there  be  even  Catholic 
writers  who,  exceeding  the  limits  fixed  them  by  the 
Apostles  and  the  Church,  seek,  on  pleas  of  higher 
criticism  and  of  historic  truth,  to  promote  that  which 
they  call  progressive,  but  which  is  in  reality  deformed 
dogma.  .  .  . 

Article  i.  The  ecclesiastic  law,  which  prescribes 
that  writings  which  deal  with  the  Holy  Scripture 
must  be  subjected  to  censorship,  extends  to  those 
which  are  concerned  with  the  criticism  and  the 
scientific  commentary  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament. 

^  Can  be  obtained  from  2  Rue  Simon-Maupin,  Lyons.     Price  fr.  0.25. 
'^  The  italics  are  the  author's,  except  in  the  case  of  the  word  "  Index." 

130 


Church  and  State 

Article  4.  The  prelates  of  the  Church  may  deter- 
mine by  dogmatic  definitions  the  true  meaning 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Article  7.  The  Church,  when  denouncing  error, 
may  demand  from  the  faithful  conscientious  assent 
to  its  decrees. 

Article  8,  Are  guilty,  those  who  do  not  defer  to 
the  prohibitions  pronounced  by  the  Congregation 
of  the  Index  and  other  Roman  Congregations. 

Article  22.  Those  doctrines  which  are  given  by 
the  Church  as  revealed  are  heaven-born  truths  and 
are  not  the  interpretation  of  certain  religious  facts 
proceeding  from  the  workings  of  the  human  mind 
throughout  the  ages. 

Article  23.  There  may  not  and  does  not  truly 
exist  any  opposition  between  those  facts  reported 
in  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  dogma  of  the 
Church  connected  therewith  ;  thus,  no  critic  may 
reject  as  false  those  facts  which  the  Church  holds 
to  be  true. 

Article  24.  He  is  guilty  who  lays  down  premises 
from  which  it  appears  that  any  dogma  is  historically 
false  or  uncertain,  even  should  he  not  deny  the 
dogma  itself. 

Article  53.  The  organic  constitution  of  the 
Church  is  not  subject  to  vai'iation  ;  Christian  society 
is  not,  as  is  human  society,  subject  to  an  eternal 
evolution. 

Article  56.  The  Roman  Church  has  become  the 
head  of  all  churches,  not  owing  to  political  circum- 
stances but  iji  virtue  of  a  divine  ordinance" 

These  articles  should  surely  suffice  to  indicate  that 

131 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

the  Roman  Catholic  Church  remains  true  to  its  tradi- 
tions and  to  justify  the  charges  levelled  at  it  in  this 
chapter.  The  Church  appears  therein  as  censor  of  the 
library  of  the  faithful  (Articles  i  and  8),  as  tyrant  of 
their  deeds  (Articles  7,  23  and  24)  and  of  their  thoughts 
(Articles  4  and  22),  Article  53,  which  denies  the  exist- 
ence of  evolutionary  forces,  and  Article  56,  in  which  the 
Decree  claims  for  the  Church  direct  divine  authority, 
are  a  worthy  conclusion  to  this  monument  of  absolutism, 
so  much  so  that  it  appears  useless  to  dilate  on  the  sub- 
ject.^ I  will  quote  only  Anglican  opinion  on  the  Decree, 
as  the  Established  Church  is  more  likely  to  be  in 
sympathy  with  Rome  than  are  Nonconformist  bodies, 
so  that  the  following  extracts  from  the  Church  Times 
of  20th  September  1907  represent  the  most  friendly 
criticism  to  be  expected  from  British  opinion,  especially 
as  they  proceed  from  the  pen  of  a  Roman  Catholic 
writer : — 

"  Throughout  the  whole  document  runs  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Church  as  a  mere  appanage  of  the  Papacy ; 
of  the  body  of  faithful.  Bishops,  priests  and  laity  as 
a  horde  of  slaves,  obedient  to  the  nod  of  a  despot, 
without  rights  or  liberties,  save  such  as  it  may  be  the 

^  The  obscurantism  of  the  Papacy  has  been  exemplified  by  the  persecu- 
tion which  has  been  indulged  in  with  regard  to  the  more  liberal  section  of 
the  priesthood.  The  Archbishop  of  Algiers  and  the  Archbishop  of  Avig- 
non have  been  compelled  to  resign  their  sees  by  the  Ultramontane  party, 
which  resented  their  Republican  tendencies ;  the  Bishop  of  Tarentaise, 
Mgr.  Lacroix  (who  retired  in  October  1907),  was  guilty  of  the  same 
crime  and  had,  moreover,  organised  a  diocesan  association,  which  the 
Government  acknowledged  as  an  Association  of  Worship.  This  associa- 
tion (Societe  de  St.  Sigismond)  was  composed  exclusively  of  priests  and  the 
Bishop  was  its  chairman  ;  yet  it  was  dissolved  by  the  Pope,  and  now 
Mgr.  Lacroix,  an  honest  Republican,  has  been  driven  out  of  the  fold 
because  of  his  loyalty  to  the  law  of  his  country. 

132 


church  and  State 

pleasure  of  the  despot  to  grant  them.  Never  before 
has  the  absolutism  of  Rome  been  defined  with  such 
brutal  frankness. 

".  .  .  The  third  part  of  the  encyclical  contains  practi- 
cal instructions  of  the  most  despotic  and  intolerable 
character  which,  if  they  can  be  enforced,  may  make 
it  difficult  for  an  intelligent  and  honest  man  to  remain 
in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy." 

Need  we  add  much  more  to  such  an  indictment,  to  one, 
especially,  coming  from  such  a  source  ?  Yet  the  Decree 
is  merely  the  latest  embodiment  of  the  traditional  policy 
of  Rome. 

The  Church  of  Rome  has  never  encouraged  thought ; 
its  enthusiasm  for  its  cause,  its  charity,  its  love  of  the 
arts  have  been  magnificent :  its  hostility  to  thought  is 
patent.  Let  any  man  who  does  not  credit  this  consult 
the  Index  expurgatorms,  where  he  will  find  a  goodly 
company  of  thinkers,  from  Renan  and  Zola  to  Spencer 
and  Darwin.  Where  thought  steps  in  "higher  criti- 
cism "  follows  and  such  is  not  meet  for  the  faithful ; 
hidebound  in  its  prejudices,  sunk  into  a  morass  of  tradi- 
tion and  voluntary  ignorance,  again  I  ask  :  Is  it  a  wonder 
that  the  Church  has  lost  its  hold  upon  a  nation  of 
thinkers  and  of  students  ?  It  has  tried  to  ride  a  restive 
horse  on  the  curb  and  pulled  the  rein  tighter  when  the 
steed  laid  back  its  ears,  with  the  usual  result  for  the 
rash  rider.  Mr.  R.  de  Marmande,  in  several  illuminating 
articles  in  the  Westminster  Gazette,  in  1906  and  1907, 
pokes  pungent  fun  at  the  Index  of  the  Abbe  Bethleem, 
which  prohibits  everything,  from  Chateaubriand,  that 
very  gentlemanly  writer,  to  Pierre  Loti  the  idyllic ! 

All  this,  however,  though  enough  to  explain  why  the 

133 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

French  have  turned  away  from  the  Church,  is  not 
enough  to  show  why  they  have  turned  against  it.  Had 
it  confined  itself  to  "  popery  and  prelacy,"  it  might  have 
gone  on  for  ever  in  the  rut  of  its  insignificance,  undis- 
turbed and  unheeded.  Little  by  little  the  people  would 
have  attended  Mass  less  and  less;  they  would  no  longer 
have  bought  indulgences  or  cherished  holy  medals  and 
scapulars ;  a  few  old  women  would  have  persisted  in 
telling  their  beads ;  the  bourgeois  might,  out  of  regard 
for  respectability,  have  subjected  their  children  to  bap- 
tism and  supplemented  the  legal  marriage  before  the 
inaire  by  a  religious  service,  and  the  Church  would 
have  become  a  picturesque  survival.  All  this  has  hap- 
pened, and  nothing  more  would  have  happened  if 
Frenchmen  had  not  felt  threatened  by  this  occult, 
mystic,  foreign  power ;  they  are  a  pacific  race,  but  their 
character  is  aptly  described  by  the  great  rhyme  of  an 
obscure  songster  : — 

Cet  animal  est  tres  mechant : 
Quand  on  I'attaque  il  se  defend  I 

In  the  case  of  France  the  animal  waited  to  be  attacked, 
and  then  turned  on  its  tormentor  and  rent  it  limb  from 
limb. 

Briefly,  the  Church  is  charged  with  having  attempted 
the  enslavement  of  the  people  and  of  having  tried  to 
compass  the  downfall  of  the  Republic.  Of  course  this 
old  charge  has  many  a  time  been  levelled  at  the  Church, 
and  the  priesthood  state  in  answer  that  the  Church  has 
never  been  hostile  to  the  Republic,  any  more  than  to 
any  Monarchy,  because  it  is  international  and  all- 
embracing.  French  Republicans  say  that  this  is  not 
the   case   and    that   the   Church   has   ever   been    their 

134 


church  and  State 

historic  enemy;  it  is  certainly  a  fact  that,  without 
going  back  any  further  than  the  restoration  of  Louis 
XVIII,  we  at  once  find  the  clergy  on  the  side  of  the 
Monarchy  and  of  the  aristocracy,  as  is  also  the  case 
under  Charles  X.  The  Church  has  always  followed  in 
the  train  of  the  powerful  leader,  of  the  autocrat  ready 
to  dispense  favours  and  to  assist  it  in  securing  its  grip 
upon  the  people.  Can  any  other  attitude  be  expected 
from  the  most  backward  of  Churches  with  the  lowest 
of  educational  standards?  The  Church  never  loved 
even  the  Concordat,  in  spite  of  the  great  advantages 
conferred  upon  it  thereby;  the  Church  wants  to  be 
the  State,  not  to  be  its  ally.  Failing  this,  it  is  ready 
enough  to  join  forces  with  a  man  or  a  class  which 
it  feels  will  be  faithful  and  obedient ;  with  a  democ- 
racy it  cannot  and  will  not  deal,  knowing  well  that 
the  day  will  come  when  this  too  enlightened  people 
will  shake  off  its  yoke  and  sweep  it  out  of  existence. 

The  Church  is  the  enemy  of  the  Republic  ;  for  many 
years  it  carried  on  an  insidious  propaganda  against  the 
modern  State  by  legitimate  and  illegitimate  party 
methods.  Practically  all  French  Reactionaries  are 
Catholics  and  practically  all  French  Catholics  are  Re- 
actionaries ;  they  have  prostituted  the  Cross  by  invok- 
ing it  against  a  system  of  government  not  in  itself  evil. 
For  years  the  instrument  of  the  Papacy,  La  Croix,  has 
spread,  far  and  wide,  hostility  to  the  Republic  as  a 
system  ;  money  has  been  lavished  upon  its  production 
and  circulation.^  Other  papers  of  various  political 
shades  have  eked  out  a  mysterious  existence  with  the 
smallest  of  circulations  and  no  advertisements  to  speak 

^  I  can  recall  twice  having  had  a  copy  thrust  into  my  hand,  in  the 
street,  as  a  gift  during  the  acute  period  of  the  Dreyfus  case. 

I3S 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of;  as  they  invariably  aired  both  Reactionary  and  clerical 
views,  what  can  be  the  answer  to  the  question,  Who 
paid  the  bill  ?  The  work  was  done  by  the  Papacy  and 
its  agents  in  the  most  thorough  manner  and  with  all 
the  violence  that  characterises  religious  fanaticism  ;  no 
stone  was  left  unturned  in  Parliament  and  among  the 
people,  but  the  people  did  not  respond  as  did  the  Ven- 
dean  peasant  in  revolutionary  days  under  Cathelinau, 
Lescure  and  La  Roche-Jacquelin.  The  Church  struck 
at  the  very  root  of  the  system  by  attempting  to  capture 
the  children,  by  turning  them  out  bigots  and  potential 
enemies  of  the  Republic,  and  for  this  work  the  religious 
orders  were  told  off. 

Numerous,  powerful  and  rich,  the  orders,  now  broken 
up  or  under  the  heel  of  the  Government,  proved  a 
dangerous  foe.  They  occupied  a  unique  position, 
having  on  their  side,  as  opposed  to  a  mushroom 
government,  an  antiquity  that  could  not  fail  to  appeal 
to  the  peasantry ;  they  were  the  dispensers  of  wealth  in 
the  neighbourhood,  not  only  by  means  of  charity  and 
generous  hospitality,  but  thanks  to  their  spending 
power,  cheap  or  gratuitous  education,  and  sometimes, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Grande  Chartreuse,  because  they 
were  the  local  industrial  centre.  Thus,  their  position 
was  privileged  ;  not  only  did  they  hold  in  their  hands 
those  whose  confessions  they  heard,  but  they  held  them 
by  the  stronger  bond  of  material  advantage.  The 
orders  did  their  work  well ;  secretly  or  openly  their 
voice  made  itself  felt  at  the  elections ;  openly,  those 
who  dared  to  differ  from  them  were  persecuted  and, 
above  all,  money,  supplied  from  their  ample  possessions 
or  obtained  from  the  faithful,  was  abundantly  forth- 
coming for  campaign  purposes. 

136 


church  and  State 

Thus,  the  French  were  aroused  and  they  understood 
that  the  real  enemies  of  the  nation  were  not  at  their 
frontiers  but  were  Hving  in  their  midst,  numerous,  active 
and  intelligent ;  thus,  by  degrees,  the  nation  saw  that  it 
would  have  to  fight  for  its  liberty,  that  liberty  which  is 
the  life  of  a  race.  Away  with  indifference  and  agnos- 
ticism !  It  was  time  to  take  arms  and  repel  this  foreign 
state  within  the  State,  it  was  time  for  another  revolution, 
a  revolution  against  the  Pope.  As  has  already  been 
said,  the  French  do  not  shrink  from  revolutions  :  their 
Radicalism  is  constitutional,  so  that  they  were  perfectly 
ready  for  action  when  the  Dreyfus  case,  that  most  epoch- 
making  of  judicial  iniquities,  proved  to  be  the  match 
that  was  to  fire  the  hidden  mine. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  take  up  this  momentous 
case  as  it  is  still  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the  interested  ; 
Major  Dreyfus  has  been  rehabilitated  before  public 
opinion  as  well  as  before  the  Courts,  he  has  been 
restored  to  his  rank,  he  has  been  made  a  Chevalier  of 
the  Ligion  d'Honneiir.  The  greater  part  of  the  world 
recognises  his  innocence  and  probably  the  greater  part 
of  France  follows  suit :  the  case  is  finished  and  is  no 
more  interesting  than  any  other  judicial  trial.  But 
the  Dreyfus  case,  in  itself  nothing  but  a  sordid  con- 
spiracy, has  had  an  extraordinary  influence  upon  the 
last  ten  years  of  French  politics  ;  it  was  the  fulcrum  on 
which  rested  the  Reactionary  lever,  the  lever  which  is 
now  happily  broken.  Major  Dreyfus  was  the  victim  of 
the  militarist  party,  but  he  was  also  the  victim  of  their 
ally,  the  Church  party.  I  bring  no  charge  of  direct 
action  against  priests  or  prelates,  who  were  too  circum- 
spect to  come  out  into  the  open,  but  I  cannot  help  see- 
ing the  hand  of  a  Christian  Church  behind  the  blow 

137 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

that  struck  down  the  Jew.  If  the  men  who  so  shame- 
fully plotted  against  him  could  be  classed  in  any  politi- 
cal party  without  the  latter  resenting  it  as  an  insult,  we 
should  find  them  either  Monarchic  in  tendency  or 
partisans  of  military  dictature  brought  about  by  plebis- 
cite. M.  de  Cassagnac  (of  I'Autorite)  was  an  avowed 
Bonapartist,  M.  de  Kerohan  (of  Le  Soldi')  a  Royalist, 
M.  Arthur  Meyer  (of  Le  Gaulois)  a  Royalist,  M.  E. 
Drumont  (of  La  Libre  Parole)  an  anti-Semite ;  many 
others  could  be  quoted  among  the  pressmen  who  sided 
against  Major  Dreyfus,  but  these  suffice,  as  not  one 
prominent  Republican  can  be  found  among  them.  I 
do  not  suggest  for  a  moment  that  these  gentlemen 
were  in  any  degree  insincere  in  the  attitude  which  they 
took  up,  but  I  cannot  help  noting  that  all  the  Reaction- 
aries were  solid  against  Major  Dreyfus  and  that,  by 
degrees,  all  the  Republicans,  Radicals  and  Socialists 
rallied  to  his  support. 

To  the  Dreyfus  case  we  can  trace  the  movement 
against  the  Church,  though  its  incidence  is  indirect. 
From  this  case  proceeded  an  upheaval  against  militar- 
ism ;  the  French,  that  most  military  of  nations,  seeing 
their  liberties  imperilled  by  Caesarism,  boldly  turned 
against  their  most  cherished  institution.  The  struggle 
was  not  very  acute,  for  the  army  was  disciplined,  steady 
and  ready  to  obey  orders ;  as  regards  the  officers,  mal- 
contents were  weeded  out  in  characteristic  continental 
style  and  not  without  scandal.  In  the  process,  however, 
it  came  to  light  that  the  malcontent  officers  were 
almost  invariably  devout  Catholics  :  not  only  were  they 
Reactionaries,  which  would  not  have  troubled  the 
Government  very  much,  but  they  were  clericals,  in 
league  with  and  supported  by  the  Church.     The  latter 


church  and  State 

was  ready  to  fight  for  its  friends  and  thus  the  attention 
of  the  people  was  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  Church  was 
the  danger  and  that  the  danger  had  to  be  faced.  In 
this  wise  the  Dreyfus  case  powerfully  affects  the  ques- 
tion ;  matters  were  further  complicated  by  the  feeble 
attempt  made  by  M.  Paul  Deroulede  to  induce  General 
Roget  to  seize  the  presidential  palace.  As  is  well 
known,  the  case  ended  before  the  Haute  Cour  or  Senate, 
when  M.  Deroulede  and  M.  Marcel  Habert  were 
sentenced  to  banishment  from  which,  thanks  to  an 
amnesty,  they  have  now  returned.  Again  the  French 
people  found  that  all  the  persons  implicated  in  the  plot 
were  not  only  Reactionaries  but  Roman  Catholics, 
indeed,  that  the  terms  were  practically  synonymous. 
The  storm  grew  in  violence  and  culminated,  as  we 
know,  in  M.  Waldeck- Rousseau's  bill  against  the 
religious  orders,  followed  by  M.  Combes'  violent  execu- 
tion of  its  provisions,  the  cancelling  of  the  Concordat 
and  the  attempts  of  M.  Clemenceau's  cabinet  to  show  a 
firm  front  and  to  make  the  acceptance  of  a  new  law 
possible.  Thus  has  been  created  a  situation  bristling 
with  difficulties  and  uncertainties,  with  which  I  shall  deal 
after  the  last  anti-clerical  factor  has  been  outlined. 

The  enemies  of  the  Church  have  been  recruited  from 
among  two  classes.  One  is  composed  of  honest  Re- 
publicans incensed  by  the  attack  on  their  Government, 
men  who  were  once  devout  and  who,  by  degrees,  for- 
swore their  allegiance  to  the  Church  ;  those  men  aban- 
doned it,  as  has  already  been  shown,  on  account  of  its 
unsatisfactory  attitude.  But  they  kept  a  warm  corner 
in  their  hearts  for  the  holy  institution  ;  they  parted  from 
it  rather  regretfully  and  only  slowly  evolved  towards 
that  indifference  which  leads  first  to  agnosticism  and 

139 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

then  to  materialism.  These  men  would  never  have  in- 
terfered with  the  Church  if  the  Church  had  not  interfered 
with  them  ;  they  were  slow  to  arouse  and,  at  the  outset, 
were  more  inclined  than  not  to  support  the  priests 
against  their  foes,  but  by  degrees  they  saw  the  clerical 
and  militarist  perils  in  all  their  magnitude  and  rose 
against  them.  Nothing  has  been  more  instructive  in 
this  connection  than  the  attitude  of  the  Left  Centre  or 
Moderate  Republicans  in  the  Senate  ;  this  body  is  solid 
and  rather  conservative  and  was  perhaps  inclined  to 
deplore  the  excesses  of  the  riotous  Chamber  of  Deputies 
in  1900  and  1901  ;  but  to-day  we  see  the  same  men, 
after  having  for  some  years  progressed  along  the  line  of 
their  evolution,  voting  in  the  same  lobby  (to  use  an 
English  term  for  a  different  practice  in  Paris)  as  militant 
Socialists.  Can  a  stronger  argument  be  adduced  to 
show  what  a  change  has  come  over  the  solid  classes  of 
France  ? 

But,  by  itself,  this  class  would  have  done  nothing :  it 
would  not  have  had  the  necessary  driving  power  to  hurl 
itself  against  the  solid  wall  of  clericalism  and  wreck  it ; 
it  supplied  a  splendid  handle  for  the  hammer,  but 
another  class  had  to  supply  the  steel,  and  that  class  was 
the  Socialist  party.  The  Socialists  and  the  Extreme 
Radicals  were  the  principal  agents  of  the  downfall  of  the 
Church  ;  they  do  not  deny  the  imputation,  in  fact,  they 
glory  in  it  and  exult  in  the  fact  that  they  have  expelled 
Roman  Catholicism  from  the  French  cosmos.  We 
must  not  be  biased  in  the  matter,  as  this  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  communism  or  individualism ;  the  Socialists 
were  not  dealing  with  questions  of  property,  except  as 
regards  that  of  the  religious  orders ;  such  questions 
arose  only  as  side  issues,  as  the  object  of  the   anti- 

140 


Church  and  State 

clerical  campaign  was  not  to  capture  the  comparatively 
unimportant  goods  of  the  Church,  but  to  put  it  in  such 
a  position  that  it  could  no  longer  interfere  with  the 
Republic.  Therefore,  whether  the  reader  be  a  Socialist 
or  a  Tory,  he  should  bear  in  mind  that,  as  far  as  the  ques- 
tion of  Church  and  State  in  France  is  concerned,  there 
need  be  no  difference  between  Socialists  and  Republi- 
cans in  so  far  as  they  were  working  conjointly  for  politi- 
cal and  not  for  economic  ends  ;  opposition  to  Socialism 
is  founded  on  economics  only,  not  on  politics  ;  in  this 
case  we  see  Socialism  figure  as  a  political  force  and 
no  more. 

The  Socialist  is  the  enemy  of  the  Church,  of  all 
Churches ;  why  this  should  be  is  fairly  clear,  and  it 
appears  to  be  the  case  in  all  countries  where  Socialism 
is  at  all  powerful.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Christian 
doctrine  that  the  Socialist  cannot  accept,  and  I  do  not 
for  a  moment  believe  that  the  doctrine,  in  all  its  pristine 
purity,  would  have  aroused  the  antagonism  of  the 
Socialists,  but  it  has  been  tortured  by  sacerdotal  prac- 
tices into  an  unrecognisable  system.  Indeed,  there  is 
a  common  saying  that  Christ  was  the  first  Socialist ; 
this,  like  most  common  sayings,  like  that  which  declares 
that  "  we  are  all  Socialists  nowadays,"  is  hardly  correct 
and  rests  upon  a  misconception.  Whether  or  no  we  be 
supporters  of  Socialism,  we  should  endeavour  to  under- 
stand it  and  its  aims ;  we  shall  thus  be  better  fitted  to 
support  it  or  to  fight  it  according  to  our  inclination  ;  in 
this  particular  case,  there  are  no  grounds  for  claiming 
Christ  as  a  Socialist,  as  there  are  not  many  texts  in 
the  Bible  that  can  be  applied  to  the  community :  all 
aim  at  the  individual,  at  his  attitude  in  the  world,  at 
his  ultimate  fate ;  the  counsels  given  there  are  perfectly 

141 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

consonant  with  ideal  Socialism,  as  they  are  based  on 
perfect  love  and  perfect  charity,  but  there  is  no  sugges- 
tion of  the  modern  form  of  either  Communistic  or 
State  Socialism. 

The  fact  that  there  is  no  inherent  objection  to  a 
Christian  being  a  Socialist  is  demonstrated  by  the 
existence  of  a  section  of  Christian  Socialists,  not  only 
in  England,  but  in  Belgium,  in  Austria,  and  in  France 
itself;  they  are  not  numerous,  nor  at  all  powerful, 
because  Christianity,  as  expounded  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  has  ceased  to  show  the  external  signs 
of  the  original  doctrine,  so  that  opposition  to  the 
Church  usually  means  hatred  of  Christianity.  The 
Socialist  party  is  practically  atheistic,  not  only  because 
it  is  led  by  intellectuals,  among  whom  are  numbered 
many  agnostics  and  materialists,  but  because  it  has 
confounded  in  a  common  hatred  Christianity  and  its 
ministers.  I  may  add  that  the  party  does  not 
differentiate  and  that  the  Protestant  faith  and  the 
Jewish  religion  come  under  the  same  ban,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  most  enlightened  French 
Socialists  are  of  Semitic  origin. 

The  Socialists,  having  thus  confounded  religion  and 
its  ministers,  found  themselves  from  the  outset  in 
conflict  with  a  Church  which  was  no  longer  a  popular 
institution,  but  which  had  a  natural  leaning  towards 
conservatism.  What  has  already  been  said  amply 
shows  that  the  Gallic  Church  is  and  has  always  been 
Reactionary  in  tendency  and  even  militant  in  its 
support  of  the  old  regime :  that  is  natural  enough  ;  it 
is  still  more  natural  for  the  Church  to  look  upon 
Socialism  with  a  yet  more  unfavourable  eye.  The  new 
idea  threatened  it  from  its  very  inception  by  its  sub- 

142 


church  and  State 

versive  doctrine,  its  levelling  tendency  and  the  pitiless 
war  that  it  declared  against  the  powerful  and  the 
wealthy,  against,  in  fact,  the  mainstay  of  the  Church ; 
if  the  clerical  party  was  ready  to  fight  the  Republic, 
how  much  more  ready  must  it  have  been  to  fight 
Communism  !  It  had  everything  to  lose  and  nothing 
to  gain  by  joining  forces  with  Socialism  at  the  start, 
nothing  material,  that  is :  of  spiritual  profits  we  will 
say  nothing.  Had  it  been  a  true  Christian  Church, 
poor,  lowly  and  meek  in  spirit,  or  militant  and  burning 
with  anger  before  the  misery  of  the  world,  another  tale 
might  have  been  told,  but  it  was  a  Church  of  jewels 
and  gold,  of  music  and  of  crude  beauty ;  it  revolted 
before  the  prospect  of  being  swamped  by  the  horny- 
handed  sons  of  toil.  And  as  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  if  it  had  no  others,  would  ever  have  the  virtue 
of  courage,  it  boldly  stood  up  against  the  new  power : 
it  has  been  the  contest  of  David  and  Goliath,  but  the 
giant  has  won. 

Thus,  the  Socialists,  seeing  before  them  yet  another 
enemy,  determined  that  they  would  vanquish  it  and  put 
in  the  forefront  of  their  programme  the  destruction  of 
Christianity  itself;  the  struggle  against  the  Church  thus 
soon  resolved  itself  into  a  struggle  for  something 
greater,  for  something  that  could  hardly  have  been 
attained  if  the  Reactionaries  had  not  supplied  the 
weapons  with  which  they  were  routed.  The  alliance 
of  priest  and  old  regime  is  the  ladder  by  which  the 
Socialists  have  climbed  to  the  pinnacle  of  political 
power ;  solid  men  of  property  as  well  as  malcontents  of 
all  sorts,  the  indifferent  and  the  poor,  all  those  who  had 
grievances  against  the  Church  flocked  to  the  Socialist 
rather   than    to    the    Republican    standard ;    the    one 

143 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

promised  to  destroy  their  enemy,  while  the  other  did 
not  as  yet  advocate  it.  A  sort  of  storm  swept  over  the 
country  during  which  the  enormous  majority  of  the 
electors  made  a  step  towards  extremism  ;  the  Socialists 
increased  to  such  an  extent  as  to  enter  the  Cabinet ; 
the  Republicans  followed  the  movement  and  dubbed 
themselves  Radical-Socialists,  practically  pledged  to 
vote  with  the  Socialist  party.  Thus,  when  the  time 
came  to  act,  towards  1900,  supporters  of  the  Church 
were  stifled  by  numbers  and  the  rest  is  history. 

We  all  know  more  or  less  what  has  happened  :  for 
the  last  three  or  four  years  newspapers  and  reviews 
have  kept  us  posted  and  the  reader  must  have  noted 
how  continuously  extremism  has  grown.  The  religious 
orders  were  first  of  all  subjected  to  State  control  with 
the  alternative  of  dissolution  ;  furthermore  the  property 
of  dissentients  was  confiscated  and,  in  course  of  time, 
even  those  orders  which  had  submitted  saw  themselves 
further  chastised  and  regulated,  even  the  right  to  teach 
being  withdrawn  from  them.  From  1903  to  1906, 
extremism  maintained  its  triumphant  sway  and 
achieved  the  cancelling  of  the  Concordat  and  thereby 
disestablishment ;  from  that  time  onwards  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  was  doomed.  The  monetary  loss  is 
considerable,  yet  not  so  much  in  itself  as  because  the 
faithful  are  no  longer  numerous  or  wealthy  and  are  not 
likely  to  increase  if  their  purse  is  to  be  taxed.  The 
salaries  of  the  priests  were  small  but  apparently 
sufficient  when  supplemented  by  their  fees ;  their  sup- 
pression, coupled  with  the  fact  that  fees  for  baptism  and 
marriage  services  have  been  made  illegal,  threw  the 
forty  thousand  French  clerics  on  the  charity  of  their 
parishioners  :  will  it  last  ? 

144 


Church  and  State 

The  clerics  cannot  look  to  the  Vatican  for  help ;  it  is 
probably  embarrassed  and  impoverished  enough  as  it 
is  without  undertaking  even  a  portion  of  this  enormous 
responsibility ;  not  only  has  the  propaganda  been  ex- 
tremely costly,  but  Peter's  Pence  can  hardly  be  a  tithe 
of  what  they  were,  now  that  the  practically  defunct 
religious  orders  can  no  longer  contribute. 

That  is  the  present  position  and  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive a  more  painful  one  for  the  Pope  and  the  clergy. 
The  French  Government  has  been  called  many  hard 
names  in  the  international  Press  and  unfairly  enough  in 
most  cases.  It  had  to  fight  for  its  life,  a  fact  which  is 
not  generally  admitted,  and  it  therefore  applied  the  first 
principle  of  war  :  if  you  strike  at  all,  strike  hard.  No 
more  force  was,  however,  used  than  was  necessary ;  the 
attack  was  progressive  and  could  have  been  stopped  at 
any  moment  if  the  Church  had  chosen  to  bend  to  the 
storm  :  it  preferred  to  break  and  upon  its  own  head  be 
it.  Even  after  the  cancelling  of  the  Concordat,  the 
State,  feeling  secure  in  its  victory,  was  ready  to  parley 
with  the  fallen  foe;  is  it  not  notorious^  that  in  1906  and 
1907,  law  after  law,  every  one  more  liberal  than  the  last, 
was  offered  to  the  Papacy  and  that  it  rejected  them  all  ? 
Thus  was  the  Government  reluctantly  compelled  to  take 
over  the  property  of  the  Church ;  it  wanted  to  dises- 
tablish and  it  was  forced  to  disendow :  the  rich  and 
powerful  French  State  has  no  use  for  cathedrals  and 
manses  ;  we  may  rest  assured,  in  spite  of  the  charges  of 
cupidity  that  have  been  levelled  at  the  Government,  that 
it  has  no  desire  to  turn  them  into  museums  and  that 
such  a  bait  would  not  have  been  enough  to  make  it 
accept  the  problem  of  an  army  of  disaffected  priests. 
^  See  p.  147. 
L  145 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

I  am  aware  that,  in  the  eyes  of  a  large  section  of  the 
British  public,  the  French  Government  is  a  monster  of 
iniquity,  brutal,  grasping  and  unscrupulous;  to  that 
section  two  points,  both  important,  must  be  put ;  in  the 
early  part  of  this  chapter  I  alluded  to  the  present  state 
of  the  Protestant  and  the  Jewish  faiths  in  France  and 
to  the  fact  that  they  have  not  lost  their  hold  upon  the 
masses  of  their  adherents ;  singularly  enough  these 
"  iniquitous  "  laws  have  not  proved  unacceptable  to  any 
but  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ;  by  December  1906, 
when  it  was  decreed  by  law  that  associations  must  be 
formed  by  the  faithful  to  take  over  the  management  of 
Church  property,  every  chapel  and  synagogue  was 
properly  constituted  into  a  legal  body.  The  demand 
was  practically  that  a  body  of  churchwardens  should 
control  the  finances  of  the  churches  and  presbyteries, 
the  incumbents  remaining  independent  and  free  to  obey 
or  not  their  spiritual  chief.  Thus,  this  demand  that 
seemed  so  gross  to  the  Roman  Catholic  proved  accept- 
able to  the  Protestant  and  the  Jew ;  again  I  ask,  what 
is  this  peculiar  sanctity  that  attaches  to  the  Catholic 
faith  that  makes  it  impossible  for  it  to  obey  the  laws 
that  other  Churches  accept?  Is  It  more  devout,  more 
moral  ?  I  need  not  ask  the  question  twice  of  a  Protes- 
tant nation  ;  the  conclusion  must  necessarily  be  that  the 
Church  has  committed  the  sin  of  pride  and  for  that,  for 
that  only,  does  it  suffer. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  not  chosen  to  con- 
form to  a  law  that  others  accept  ;  he  who  contravenes 
the  law  must  be  punished  and  deserves  no  sympathy. 
But  a  stronger  case  can  be  made  against  the  Church, 
against  its  Prelacy  or  Popery,  whatever  men  may  choose 
to  call  it.     Compared  with  other  Churches  its  case  is 

146 


church  and  State 

poor;  if  we  look  at  it  from  the  inside  its  weakness  is 
appalling :  this  brings  us  to  the  second  point.  These 
iniquitous  laws  that  have  called  forth  these  thundering 
encyclicals,  reminiscent  of  Gregory  the  Great  in  their 
lofty  absolutism,  of  Julius  II  in  their  militant  fury,  these 
iniquitous  laws  were  submitted  in  1906  to  the  conclave 
of  French  Bishops  and  Archbishops,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  Cardinal  Richard.  Private  as  was  the  dis- 
cussion the  truth  leaked  out :  the  Prelates  were  not  in 
favour  of  the  law  but  they  were  ready  to  accept  it  with 
slight  modification.  They  were  willing  that  "  canonical 
associations,"  somewhat  similar  to  the  legal  associations 
of  worship,  should  be  constituted,  as  suggested  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Besangon  ;  in  a  word  they  were  anxious 
for  an  eirenicon.  Thereupon  the  Pope  (or  his  adviser 
Cardinal  Merry  del  Val)  threw  in  their  faces  his  absolute 
veto ;  with  magnificent  solidarity  the  Prelates  burned 
that  which  they  had  worshipped  and  followed  the  Pope. 
From  that  time  onwards  their  loyalty  has  never  for  one 
moment  wavered,  not  a  threat  of  schism  having  even  been 
whispered  ;  they  are  ready  to  face  persecution,  poverty, 
exile  :  c'est  magnifique  mats  ce  nest  pas  la  guerre. 

Let  us  review  briefly  the  phases  of  the  struggle.  In 
July  1901,  the  law  controlling  religious  orders  was  passed; 
it  applied  to  no  less  than  21,000  institutions  and  pro- 
posed to  compel  them  to  register  their  rules  and  to  give 
a  yearly  account  of  their  expenditure.  The  Republican 
party  contended,  with  some  show  of  reason,  that,  if  these 
objects  were  purely  charitable  or  educational,  as  was 
claimed  by  the  clericals,  there  could  be  no  objection  to 
submit  to  investigation.  The  Government  felt  that  the 
only  means  of  keeping  the  orders  in  check  and  of 
preventing  them  from  devoting  to  political  agitation  the 

147 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

vast  wealth  which  they  possessed,  was  to  ascertain  the 
origin  of  their  property  and  the  use  that  was  made  of  it. 
Nothing  could  be  more  legitimate :  the  State  limits  the 
powers  of  the  individual,  who  may  not  carry  weapons  as 
he  thinks  fit,  nor  grow  tobacco  without  a  permit,  nor 
compete  with  the  Post  Office,  etc.  In  the  same  manner, 
and  for  far  more  weighty  reasons,  the  State  considered 
itself  entitled  to  ascertain  that  the  operations  of  the  in- 
criminated orders  were  innocent. 

The  response  was  immediate ;  under  instructions 
from  Rome,  the  religious  orders  and  associations  de- 
clined to  register,  with  the  exception  of  some  four 
hundred,  most  of  which  were  disallowed.  Whether  they 
feared  to  divulge  their  operations  or  whether  they  were 
sacrificed  to  a  principle  is  uncertain  ;  the  fact  remains 
the  orders  have  been  broken  up,  their  members  exiled 
or  dispersed,  and  the  bulk  of  their  property  confiscated. 
These  measures  may  seem  harsh,  but  the  Republic 
could  not  afford  to  trifle  with  the  orders :  it  was  fighting 
for  its  life.  For  this  reason  M.  Combes,  whose  Govern- 
ment followed  on  that  of  M.Waldeck-Rousseau,  should  be 
exonerated  from  blame :  he  is  often  charged  with  having 
displayed  too  much  energy:  it  was  essential  if  the  160,000 
monks  and  nuns  were  to  be  dealt  with  successfully. 

Even  when  the  orders  were  dispersed,  for  very  few 
accepted  the  law,  the  back  of  clerical  resistance  was 
not  broken.  Agitation  and  even  rioting  continued  so 
intense  that  it  was  found  necessary,  in  December  1905, 
to  disestablish  the  Church.  The  Church  had  been 
recognised  by  the  Concordat,  granted  by  Napoleon  I  in 
1 80 1,  a  convention  by  which  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  benefited  to  a  considerable  extent,  as  the  Holy 
See,  through  the  medium  of  the  Bishops,  could  partici- 

148 


church  and  State 

pate  in  the  nomination  of  incumbents ;  thus  the  hier- 
archical principle,  for  which  the  Church  is  now  fighting, 
was  upheld.  Moreover,  the  State  supplied  the  Church 
with  about  ;^i, 800,000  per  annum  and  granted  pensions 
to  retiring  incumbents.  The  disestablishment  of  the 
Church  was  therefore  a  serious  blow,  for  it  threw  upon 
the  faithful  the  responsibility  for  the  salary  of  their 
priests,  a  responsibility  which,  by  the  way,  has  been 
accepted  cheerfully  by  Protestants  and  Jews. 

The  salaries  of  the  incumbents  were  stopped,  but  I 
would  mention,  on  account  of  the  charges  of  harsh 
treatment  which  have  been  levelled  at  the  French 
Government,  that  pensions  were  offered  to  priests  aged 
forty-five  or  more,  whose  length  of  service  had  attained 
twenty  years.  Other  incumbents  were  to  receive  pen- 
sions for  four  or  eight  years,  according  to  length  of 
service,  so  as  to  give  them  time  to  reorganise  their 
lives.  The  law  provided  that,  in  future,  the  church  in 
each  parish  and  its  finances  should  be  administered  by 
an  "  Association  of  Worship,"  comprising  at  least  seven 
persons,  one  of  whom  would  naturally  be  the  incum- 
bent. These  associations  were  to  take  over  Church 
property,  after  an  inventory  had  been  made,  after  which 
they  were  to  be  allowed  to  take  over  the  churches  too 
for  an  indefinite  period  and  to  conduct  public  worship 
as  before,  receiving  the  usual  fees ;  they  were  not 
allowed  to  accumulate  capital  beyond  a  certain  amount, 
varying  with  the  size  of  the  parish.  The  manses  could 
also  be  held  by  them  for  the  use  of  the  incumbent  at  a 
low  rent,  payable  to  the  local  authority  or  to  the  State, 
according  to  whether  the  church  in  question  was  a 
parish  church  or  a  cathedral. 

These  appear  moderate  proposals,  modelled   some- 

149 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

what  on  the  same  lines  as  the  arrangements  made  by 
our  Nonconformist  bodies,  with  the  possible  infusion 
of  hierarchical  influence.  Yet  they  were  rejected  at 
once,  in  spite  of  the  expressed  conciliatory  feeling  of 
the  conclave  and  the  Besangon  resolution.  The  Papacy 
remained  obdurate,  in  spite  of  the  obvious  intention  of 
the  Government  not  to  give  way  when  the  law  came 
into  force  in  December  1906.  No  associations  were 
regularly  formed,  though  in  some  parishes  the  faithful 
attempted  to  register  against  the  wishes  of  the  Church ; 
these  groups  were  not  recognised,  as  the  French 
Government  could  not  give  its  support  to  schismatics, 
but  could  only  enforce  the  law  if  Rome  accepted  it. 
Rome  having  proved  obdurate,  M.  Clemenceau's 
cabinet,  and  particularly  M.  Briand,  exhausted  every 
resource  of  diplomacy  to  meet  the  Papacy  half-way,  in 
spite  of  the  outcry  on  the  part  of  their  more  extreme 
supporters.  In  January  1907,  they  offered  the  Church 
the  rt^gimc  of  the  Common  Law,  by  assimilating  public 
worship  to  ordinary  meetings,  which  necessitate  solely 
one  declaration  every  year  by  the  incumbent  and  two 
other  persons,  but  the  Church  has  refused  to  submit 
even  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  the  land,  declined  to 
recognise  the  existence  of  a  temporal  government. 
The  Republic  has  gone  even  further :  though  it  was 
impossible  to  recognise  the  hierarchy,  M.  Briand  offered 
the  Church  a  form  of  contract  enabling  the  incumbent 
to  enter  into  possession  of  his  church  under  Common 
Law,  if  authorised  to  do  so  by  his  Bishop,  and  even  this 
immense  concession  has  been  declined.  The  Church 
refuses  to  be  controlled  even  by  the  most  paternal 
rule  ;  it  wishes  to  be  above  the  Law  and  its  desires  are 
now  realised  :  it  is  outside  the  Law.    Soon  the  churches 

150 


church  and  State 

may  be  closed  and  the  most  moderate  Government  that 
France  has  known  of  late  years  may  be  compelled  to 
banish  and  to  imprison  priests,  who  will  then  be 
nothing  but  disturbers  of  the  peace.  The  Republic 
will  be  coerced  into  using  force  and  the  entire  strength 
of  the  Roman  hierarchy  will  be  arrayed  against  it. 

The  Pope  has  elected  to  fight  and  the  Prelates  will 
follow  him  even  in  his  wildest  tilts  at  the  Republican 
windmills ;  only  one  thing  has  been  forgotten  and  that 
is  the  care  of  the  souls  of  the  faithful.  The  Papacy  has 
accepted  martyrdom :  that  is  its  right ;  it  has  determined 
to  allow  agnosticism  and  atheism  to  make  further  in- 
roads upon  the  masses  of  the  French  people :  that  is 
its  eternal  wrong. 

In  the  present  state  of  things,  therefore,  it  is  not 
correct  to  call  the  French  a  nation  of  atheists  ;  the 
largest  section  is  neither  hot  nor  cold  :  for  the  men  of 
Laodicea  there  is  no  salvation ;  another  is  violently  anti- 
clerical and  its  allegiance  will  never  be  regained  :  it  has 
tasted  the  joy  of  victory  and  never  can  it  again  bow  to 
the  routed  foe ;  lastly,  there  still  remains  a  nucleus  of 
the  faithful,  the  pitiful  remnant  of  a  great  following, 
impoverished,  despondent,  broken  in  spirit  and  con- 
scious that  the  people  will  never  again  submit  to  the 
rule  of  a  foreign  tyrant.  The  Papacy  has  lost  France 
for  itself,  but  it  has  also  lost  it  for  Christianity ;  it  had 
received  a  sacred  trust  and  that  trust  has  not  been  ful- 
filled ;  upon  the  Papacy  devolved  the  great  and  glorious 
load  of  the  spiritual  guidance  of  a  race :  it  has  failed  in 
its  task  as  it  has  failed  with  Italy,  as  it  is  failing  with 
Germany  and  Spain.  The  burden  must  be  transferred  to 
other  shoulders,  while  the  Church  makes  ready  to  give 
an  account  of  its  charge ;  when  that  account  is 
demanded,  what  will  the  answer  be  ? 

151 


CHAPTER  VIII 
SOCIALISM 

BEFORE  considering  to  what  extent  Socialism  has 
developed  under  the  Republic,  it  is  essential  to 
arrive  at  a  correct  idea  of  the  meaning  of  this  much- 
misused  word.  The  giving  of  a  correct  definition  and 
the  intelligent  application  of  the  term  '*  Socialism  "  do 
not  in  any  way  affect  the  position  of  partisans  or  oppo- 
nents of  the  system  ;  the  former  of  course  rarely  mis- 
understand its  meaning,  but  the  latter  do,  more  often 
than  not,  out  of  sheer  ignorance  and  sometimes  affect 
to  do  so  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the  thing  they 
detest.  Such  ignorance  is  painful,  especially  when  we 
know  how  simple  the  socialistic  theories  are ;  as  regards 
those  who  misrepresent  the  enemy  for  party  purposes, 
they  are,  of  course,  beneath  consideration. 

Though  considerable  light  has,  during  the  past  two 
or  three  years,  been  shed  upon  the  theory  of  Socialism, 
owing  to  the  successes  of  Labour  candidates  at  the 
polls,  there  appears  to  remain  a  considerable  section  of 
the  public  who  have  no  idea  of  the  basis  of  Socialism 
and  who  invest  it  with  a  variety  of  shadowy  terrors ; 
they  affix  the  label  indiscriminately  to  any  measure 
that  provokes  their  opposition  because  it  touches  their 
pocket.  Thus  we  have  even  seen  "  Small  Holdings " 
denounced  on  this  plea,  an  entertaining  fact  when  we 

152 


Socialism 

remember  that  the  scheme  proposes  to  create  peasant 
proprietors  by  the  million. 

Roughly  speaking,  Socialism  is  based  on  a  single 
principle  :  The  natiojialisation  or  municipalisation  of  all 
means  of  production,  distribution  and  exchange.  Socialism 
proposes  to  extend,  for  the  benefit  either  of  the  State 
or  of  the  municipalities,  the  system  that  now  prevails 
with  respect  to  the  Post  Office,  the  Crown  Lands, 
municipal  tramways,  etc.  The  Socialists  propose  to 
absorb  private  enterprise  by  purchase  and  to  control 
it  for  the  benefit  of  the  community.  Were  this  com- 
pletely effected,  all  men  would  automatically  become 
government  officials.  It  is  contended  by  the  party  that 
all  profits,  if  any,  becoming  the  property  of  the  com- 
munity, it  would  be  possible  to  manufacture  exactly 
enough  to  supply  the  needs  of  the  world  and  to  reduce 
the  hours  of  labour  all  round  ;  on  the  other  hand  it  is 
maintained  that  the  suppression  of  the  prospect  of 
private  gain  would  do  away  with  initiative  and  that 
industries  would  therefore  deteriorate. 

It  would  be  possible  to  attack  the  arguments  of  both 
parties,  because  Socialism  presupposes  the  existence 
of  men  trained  on  different  lines  from  ourselves,  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  take  sides  in  the  matter  here. 
I  only  wish  to  define  exactly  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"  Socialism,"  as  understood  by  those  who  support  it ;  the 
necessity  for  this  is  apparent  when  we  remember  how 
widespread  is  the  fallacy  contained  in  the  following 
argument :  "  If  we  were  to  divide  all  the  wealth  of  this 
world  among  its  inhabitants,  the  intelligent  and  the 
thrifty  would  in  a  very  short  time  concentrate  it  again 
in  their  hands."  The  absurdity  of  this  hypothesis  is 
clearly  seen  when  we  remember  that  the  avowed  aim 

153 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  the  Socialist  party  is  so  far  from  being  "  equal 
division  "  that  it  tends  to  the  absorption  by  the  State 
of  such  private  property  as  exists  at  the  present  time. 

We  should  also  remember  that  all  manufacturing, 
commercial  or  banking  operations  conducted  by  the 
State  are  Socialism  ;  thus,  as  is  mentioned  above,  the 
Post  Office,  State  railways  (in  Germany,  for  instance), 
Government  public-houses  (Russia),  municipal  tram- 
ways, tenements  and  milk  supply,  etc.,  are  all  of  the 
pure  type  of  State  Socialism.  The  necessity  for  this 
remark  arises  from  the  fact  that  many  of  these  old- 
established  businesses  receive  support  from  bitter  op- 
ponents of  Socialism ;  I  do  not  intend  to  develop  the 
case  either  for  or  against  them,  but  we  must  not  lose 
sight  of  the  truth. 

This  brief  analysis  of  the  nature  of  Socialism  being 
finished,  let  us  now  examine  the  position  of  the  Socialist 
party  in  France  and  try  to  arrive  at  its  most  character- 
istic features.  Though  the  doctrine  has  developed  in 
favourable  ground,  we  must  divest  ourselves  of  the 
idea  that  France,  the  land  of  the  red  Radicals,  is  the 
centre  of  the  Socialistic  world ;  though  the  total  of 
the  votes  cast  for  advanced  candidates  is  an  imposing 
one,  we  must  note  that  it  does  not  amount  to  much 
more  than  a  quarter  of  the  total  poll,  whilst  in 
Germany  about  one-half  of  the  votes  recorded  went  to 
the  Social  Democrats,  who  are  all  either  avowed  Social- 
ists or  of  more  pronounced  views  than  the  most  ad- 
vanced Radicals.  The  fact  is  that  even  the  sans-culottes 
who  executed  Louis  XVI  had  a  very  keen  respect  for 
individual  property ;  the  tradition  of  the  Declaration 
of  the  Rights  of  Man  was  not  mocked  at  that  time  and 
has  survived  to  this  day.     The  Revolution  was  simply 

154 


Socialism 

the  turning  of  the  tables  by  the  "under  dog"  on  the 
"top  dog";  had  the  people  been  well  governed,  taxed 
only  in  moderation  and  tried  equitably  in  the  Courts 
of  Law,  there  would  have  been  no  upheaval  and  a 
Bourbon  might  be  sitting  on  the  French  throne  at  the 
present  time.  Nor  was  there  any  Socialistic  inspiration 
in  1789  or  in  1792;  Sociahsm  is  an  importation,  coming 
mainly  from  Germany  in  the  shape  of  Carl  Marxism, 
and,  if  it  has  developed,  it  is  in  virtue  of  social  condi- 
tions and  not  owing  to  any  national  bent  of  mind. 

Socialism  is  an  economic  system  ;  its  adoption  de- 
mands from  its  adherents  either  fervent  idealism  or  a 
very  clear  appreciation  of  their  personal  interests. 
Above  all,  a  good  Socialist  must  have  a  fully  developed 
sense  of  solidarity,  a  capacity  for  understanding  his 
fellow-men  and  for  banding  himself  successfully  with 
them  ;  he  must  be  able  to  refrain  from  asserting  his 
individuality.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Germany,  the 
land  in  which  everything  resolves  itself  in  societies, 
from  theology  to  gymnastics,  has  seen  an  extensive 
development  of  the  Socialistic  movement ;  it  is  this 
fact  also  that  induces  one  to  believe  that  the  party  has 
before  it  an  immense  future  in  Great  Britain,  where 
trade  unions  flourish  and  team  games  are  the  rule. 
But  this  is  not  so  emphatically  the  case  in  France, 
owing  to  certain  characteristics  which  the  French 
possess  in  common  with  other  Latin  races.  As  will 
be  shown  further  on,  trade  unions  are  fairly  powerful  in 
France,  but  far  less  so  than,  for  instance,  in  Great 
Britain ;  their  members  do  not  in  every  case  support 
them  with  much  enthusiasm,  because  organised  effort  is 
not  very  much  to  their  taste.  The  French  are  a  nation 
of  individualists ;    they  do  not  take  kindly  to  group 

155 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
action  because  it  deprives  them  of  the  opportunity  of 
coming  to  the  fore.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  they  do 
not  succeed  in  team  games  such  as  cricket  or  football  ; 
every  man  in  the  team  plays  for  himself  and  disorder 
naturally  follows. 

Let  me  again  quote  the  saying  that  "  the  dream  of 
every  Frenchman  is  to  be  his  neighbour's  President "  ; 
it  is  not  an  ignoble  ambition,  but  it  summarises  the 
position  as  regards  Socialism.  Every  man  pursues  his 
object  without  regard  for  the  group  to  which  he  may 
belong,  whether  it  be  the  State  or  the  municipality ; 
thus,  local  affairs  awake  far  less  interest  in  France  than 
they  do  even  in  the  busiest  British  towns.  If  so  large 
a  proportion  of  the  voters  as  one-quarter  gave  their 
votes  to  Socialist  or  Socialistic  candidates,  it  is  because 
the  working  population,  captained  by  the  young  "  intel- 
lectuals," realises  that  Socialism  is  a  weapon  against  the 
moneyed  class ;  hence  they  use  it,  but  do  not  love  it, 
because  it  is  foreign  to  the  Latin  character. 

A  large  proportion  of  the  French  nation  is  composed 
of  persons  possessing  very  small  estates,  ranging  be- 
tween five  acres  and  fifty  acres,  i.e.  small  holdings ; 
nearly  one-half  of  the  population  is  employed  on  the 
land,  as  opposed  to  about  ten  per  cent  in  England  and 
Wales.  Among  this  class  Socialism  spreads  very  slowly, 
partly  because  agriculturists  are  invariably  suspicious 
of  new  ideas  and  partly  because  their  education  is 
imperfect.  If  we  add  to  these,  government  officials, 
persons  of  independent  means,  the  professions  and 
commerce,  we  find  that  only  thirty-five  per  cent  of  the 
population  are  employed  industrially.  It  is  notorious 
that  Collectivism  spreads  readily  among  industrial 
workers  and  mainly  among  that  class;  thus  it  is  easy 

156 


Socialism 

to  understand  that  there  are  limits  to  the  propagation 
of  the  doctrine,  owing  to  the  comparatively  small  num- 
ber of  the  artisans  ;  this  is  not  the  case  in  Great  Britain 
and  particularly  in  industrial  England, 

The  agriculturist  loves  the  land,  which  he  usually 
owns,  and  would  scout  the  idea  of  becoming  a  farmer 
under  the  State,  which  would  be  his  position  under 
a  Socialistic  regime ;  he  is  frugal,  hard-working  and 
thrifty  to  the  point  of  avarice,  but  intolerably  narrow, 
suspicious  and  bigoted.  Among  this  class  Socialism 
can  hardly  make  proselytes,  nor  can  it  do  so  to  any 
great  extent  among  tradesmen  and  commercial  men, 
who  are  either  their  own  masters  or  who  hope  to  set 
up  for  themselves  when  they  have  amassed  a  small 
capital.  We  therefore  find  ourselves  reduced  to  two 
classes,  the  artisans  and  the  professions,  and  it  is 
among  these  that  we  must  seek  the  Socialist  voters  of 
France. 

The  reader  will  note  at  once  that  the  professions 
have  been  quoted  as  amongst  the  opponents  of 
Socialism,  and  that  they  are  now  put  down  as  partisans. 
In  France  the  professions  are  in  the  main  antagonistic 
to  the  movement ;  in  all  countries  learning  makes  for 
advanced  opinions,  and  France  is  no  exception  :  her 
lawyers,  teachers  and  doctors  are  invariably  Republi- 
cans, except  when  they  belong  by  birth  to  the  aristo- 
cratic class.  But  they  emphatically  oppose  the  Socialist 
movement  because  they  belong  to  the  moneyed  classes 
and  realise,  the  lawyers  that  under  Socialism  their 
occupation  would  be  gone  and  the  doctors  and  other 
men  of  learning  that  their  individual  advancement 
would  be  menaced.  As  a  class,  therefore,  we  may  take 
it   for   granted   that   they  will   oppose   the   spread   of 

157 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Socialist  tenets  however  solidly  faithful  they  may  remain 
to  the  Republic.  Reaction  has  no  charms  for  men 
whose  learning  induces  in  them  contempt  for  hereditary 
rights  and  shakes  their  belief  in  elementary  religion ; 
there,  however,  they  stop  short,  in  great  part  because 
they  are  not  yet  convinced  that  Socialism  has  power  to 
heal  social  evils. 

Yet  this  class  supplies  an  important  factor  of  the 
movement :  the  greater  part  of  the  leaders.  Here  we 
find  a  noteworthy  difference  between  French  and  British 
Socialism,  for  the  latter  tends  to  exclude  all  who  are 
not  artisans.  The  Social  Democratic  Federation  does 
not  offer  to  politicians  tempting  enough  prospects 
to  induce  them  to  desert  the  Extreme  Radical  wing ; 
the  Fabian  Society  does  not  as  yet  put  candidates 
in  the  field.  In  Great  Britain  the  Socialist  party 
fights  shy  of  leaders  who  do  not  belong  to  the  artisan 
class,  and  this  is  a  source  both  of  strength  and  of 
weakness ;  on  the  one  hand  the  working-man  candi- 
date can  make  a  far  more  powerful  appeal  to  his 
fellows  than  a  smooth-tongued  young  barrister  and 
is  much  more  likely  to  be  trusted  by  them.  Against 
this  we  must  set  the  fact  that  it  is  extremely  difficult 
to  find  among  trade  unionists  men  whose  education 
and  outlook  are  sufficiently  broad  to  qualify  them  for 
leadership.  If  the  whole  of  the  world  were  converted 
to  Socialism,  this  difficulty  would  not  exist ;  but  if  we 
accept  the  prevailing  state  of  things  we  find  that  men 
are  needed  who  are  competent  to  deal  with  diplomatic, 
military  and  financial  matters.  These  are  hardly  as 
yet  found  in  the  ranks  of  labour,  so  that  its  repre- 
sentatives do  not  always  figure  to  advantage  when 
these  questions  come  to  the  fore. 

158 


Socialism 

This  state  of  things  does  not  prevail  in  France. 
There  we  find,  as  in  Great  Britain,  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  Socialist  party  composed  of  the  workers  of  the 
towns,  with  this  difference  that  in  France  trade 
unionists  are  practically  all  Socialists,  and  that  the 
bulk  of  the  Socialist  vote  is  cast  by  non-organised 
forces  which,  in  this  country,  would  probably  swell  the 
Liberal  total  But  if  the  rank  and  file  are  in  both 
countries  recruited  from  the  same  class,  the  choice  of 
leaders  does  not  proceed  on  the  same  lines.  In  Great 
Britain  it  is  unusual  for  a  candidate  to  stand  for  a 
constituency  without  some  local  backing ;  thus  each 
interest  is  sponsored  by  a  single  candidate,  whose 
election  depends  upon  the  local  association.  This 
state  of  things  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  in  Great 
Britain  no  second  ballot,  so  that  it  becomes  essential 
to  obviate  the  splitting  of  votes.  In  France  this  danger 
does  not  exist,  so  that  any  number  of  candidates  can 
stand  for  a  single  seat  without  risking  the  loss  of  it  for 
their  party.  The  trade  unions  do  not  therefore  as  a 
rule  find  it  necessary  to  choose  a  candidate  for  whom 
its  members  are  instructed  to  vote  ;  they  may  do  so,  but 
as  often  as  not  the  nominee  is  not  an  artisan  but  a 
member  of  the  professional  classes  of  whose  soundness 
there  is  no  question. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  there  is  no  class  antagonism 
in  France ;  indeed,  it  is  keener  than  in  Great  Britain ; 
to  call  a  man  a  bourgeois  is  an  insult ;  but  the  Socialists 
find  it  advantageous  to  adopt  as  leaders  men  of  educa- 
tion, such  as  barristers  or  journalists,  who  will  repre- 
sent them  worthily  in  and  out  of  Parliament.  Such 
men  may  well  be  recruited  from  among  the  ranks  of 
Labour,   as    is    demonstrated    by    the    speeches    and 

159 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

writings  of  such  men  as  Mr.  John  Burns,  Mr.  Keir 
Hardie,  Mr.  D.  J.  Shackleton,  Mr.  F.  W.  Jowett,  etc., 
but  they  are  the  exception  not  the  rule,  and  even  they 
are  incHned  to  narrow  their  outlook,  which  naturally 
makes  for  the  weakness  of  a  Socialist  State  among 
non-Socialist  countries.  In  France,  thanks  to  the  fact 
that  members  of  Parliament  are  paid,  the  professional 
classes  are  available  for  the  recruiting  of  labour  leaders ; 
indeed,  the  younger  section  is  naturally  attracted  to  the 
Socialist  standard.  As  regards  this  particular  class, 
we  can  find  in  Great  Britain  no  parallel.  In  this 
country,  generally  speaking,  the  youth  of  the  nation 
do  not  take  any  great  interest  in  politics ;  they  may 
demonstrate  against  some  cause  which  they  dislike  in 
spite  of  their  often  not  having  honoured  it  with  an 
examination  of  its  merits,  but  young  Britons  appear 
to  be  too  busy  with  their  sports  or  social  pleasures  to 
study  political  questions,  so  that  we  can  hardly  compare 
them  with  the  continental  Intelleciuels, 

The  Intellectuel  is  essentially  a  product  of  modern 
Europe  and  is  principally  to  be  found  in  France, 
Germany  and  Russia.  He  is  almost  invariably  highly 
educated,  in  sympathy  with  foreign  progress,  a  human- 
itarian and  imbued  with  ideas  either  somewhat  or  very 
much  ahead  of  his  time.  The  French  Intellectuel  is  at 
his  best  in  the  twenties ;  he  may  then  be  quixotic,  but 
he  generally  knows  his  subject  and  is  fired  with 
generous  enthusiasms.  It  is  from  among  this  class  of 
energetic  young  thinkers,  powerfully  influenced  by 
Ruskin,  Ibsen,  Bjornson,  Marx,  Gorki,  etc.,  varied  as 
these  schools  of  thought  may  be,  that  many  of  the 
most  powerful  Socialist  writers  and  speakers  are  being 
recruited.     The  young  Intellectuel  becomes  a  Socialist 

1 60 


Socialism 

(if  not  even  a  philosophical  Anarchist)  when  at  his 
university  and,  by  the  time  he  has  reached  the  age  of 
twenty-five,  which  it  will  be  remembered  is  the  lowest 
limit  for  membership  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  he 
is  practically  ready  to  be  either  a  fighting  member  or  a 
pungent  and  scholarly  journalist. 

This  curious  factor  must  never  be  lost  sight  of  when 
the  Socialist  movement  in  any  European  country  is 
examined.  In  Great  Britain  members  of  the  educated 
classes  almost  invariably  belong  to  one  of  the  two  great 
political  parties,  but  in  France  they  are  willing  to  join 
hands  with  the  masses,  not  only  as  leaders  but  with  a 
view  to  the  true  enthronement  of  the  people.  It  is 
probably  for  this  reason  that  the  Socialist  party  has 
made  so  much  headway  in  France  ;  the  educated  classes 
have  been  placated  by  seeing  their  friends  co-operate 
with  the  workers.  The  "  class-war  "  attitude  is  coming 
into  being  and  with  that  I  shall  deal  further  on,  but  that 
is  hardly  the  source  to  which  we  can  trace  the  progress 
of  Socialism  in  France  up  to  the  present  time ;  it  is 
rather  due  to  the  discontent  of  the  people,  who  are 
wisely  led  by  men  whose  education  has  fitted  them  for 
the  task.  It  should  be  said  in  passing  that  the  Jews 
have  played  a  considerable  part  in  the  development  of 
Socialism  in  France.  Whether  this  be  due  to  the  per- 
secution to  which  they  have  at  some  time  been  subjected 
in  all  European  countries,  a  persecution  which  has  not 
yet  slackened  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  or  whether 
the  race  is  naturally  revolutionary,  I  will  not  attempt  to 
decide.  However,  the  chances  are  that  the  Jews  are  at 
least  as  law-abiding  as  any  section  of  the  Christian 
population  but,  since  they  are  as  a  rule  intellectually 
superior  as  a  class  to  the  Christians  with  whom  they  are 
M  i6i 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
compared,  they  naturally  act  as  the  leaven  that  causes 
social  unrest.  The  Jews  are  either  prosperous  and  con- 
servative or  poor  and  revolutionary ;  their  intelligence 
and  indomitable  energy  have  bred  in  them  the  faculty 
of  discrimination  ;  whereas  Christians,  be  they  ever  so 
poor  and  degraded,  dully  and  despairingly  accept  the 
status  quo.  The  Jews  usually  seek  a  means  of  emerging 
from  the  lower  depths,  either  individually  or  as  a  class. 
Socialism  may  or  may  not  be  a  panacea,  but  it  certainly 
holds  out  to  the  poorest  prospects  that  no  other  political 
creed  can  offer ;  I  neither  support  nor  attack  it  here, 
but  can  only  say  that  the  growth  of  Socialism  is  not 
surprising,  indeed,  it  is  strange  that  it  should  not  yet 
have  grown  still  more. 

But  this  phenomenon  is  not  confined  to  France ;  in 
Great  Britain,  particularly  in  the  East  End  of  London, 
the  forces  of  the  Anarchists  and  Socialists  are  usually 
captained  by  foreign  Jews  ;  this  is  not  singular,  as  I  have 
tried  to  show  above,  nor  is  it  confined  to  any  one 
country.  What  is  peculiar  to  French  Socialism  is  that 
many  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement  and  of  the 
Intellectuels  are  young  Jews  belonging  to  very  wealthy 
families.  The  British  equivalent  of  these,  who  approxi- 
mate far  more  closely,  of  course,  to  their  fellows  than 
does  the  British  Christian  to  the  French,  is  usually  Con- 
servative in  politics,  sometimes  Liberal  and  very  rarely 
Socialistic.  Caste  distinctions  and  the  "class-war" 
attitude  of  the  militant  Socialists  may  be  answer- 
able for  this  state  of  things.  In  France,  where  class 
distinctions  are  not  very  powerful,  the  young  Jew 
naturally  takes  to  the  new  ideas  and,  his  cleverness  and 
quickness  aiding  him,  usually  rises  from  the  ranks.  It 
is  not  impossible  that  his  heredity  of  suffering  and  per- 

162 


Socialism 

secution  may  contribute  to  the  readiness  with  which  he 
revolts  ;  it  is  not  against  the  Jew  to  say  so,  for  it  is  not 
the  spirit  of  the  model  ratepayer  that  breeds  Hampdens, 
but  the  spirit  of  revolt. 

Such  being  the  soldiers  and  officers  who  march  under 
the  Red  Flag,  it  is  not  surprising  that  their  political 
organisation  should  have  grown  so  powerful.  The 
Socialist  party  has  hardly  suffered  from  the  ups  and 
downs  of  political  life ;  every  election  has  sent  it  back 
to  power  with  a  greater  number  of  seats  to  its  credit ; 
at  the  present  time  the  party  has  74  representatives 
in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  to  whom  we  must  add, 
in  certain  cases,  135  Radical  Socialists.  The  only 
cause  of  weakness  proceeds  from  the  divisions  in  the 
Socialist  camp,  between  the  members  who  are  willing  to 
co-operate  with  other  parties  and  those  who  will  not 
hear  of  any  connection  with  bourgeois  ministries,  how- 
ever advanced ;  the  position  is  exactly  similar  to  that 
with  which  we  are  confronted  in  Great  Britain,  where 
we  find  the  Labour  Party  divided  into  the  uncompro- 
mising Socialists  belonging  to  the  Independent  Labour 
Party,  the  Labour  candidates  of  Socialistic  tenden- 
cies and  the  trade-union  members.  These  divisions 
have,  however,  no  practical  results  in  France,  as  the 
electoral  system  allows  of  several  Socialists  standing, 
when  of  course,  if  a  second  ballot  is  necessary,  the  rest 
withdraw  in  favour  of  the  leader  of  the  poll.  As  a 
result,  we  find  that  the  "  Unified  Socialists "  of  the 
uncompromising  type  hold  53  seats,  and  the  Inde- 
pendent Socialists  21  ;  if  we  add  these  two  figures  to 
the  135  Radical  Socialists,  we  find  that  they  form  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  591  members.  Though 
they   have   not   an    absolute    majority,   the   weight  of 

163 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

these  209  advanced  votes  is  such  as  to  colour  very 
strongly  modern  legislation,  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  their  progress  will  continue  up  to  a  certain 
point. 

If  we  consider  the  Socialist  strength  in  the  country, 
we  arrive  at  still  more  striking  results.  In  1906,  366,098 
votes  were  cast  for  Independent  Socialists,  717,084  for 
Unified  Socialists  and  1,265,985  for  Radical  Socialists. 
We  arrive  thus  at  a  total  of,  say,  2,350,000  voters  of 
very  advanced  views,  or  over  26  per  cent  of  the  total 
poll.  This  is  an  amazing  figure,  and  should  give  food 
for  thought  to  those  who  believe  that  Socialism  can  be 
disregarded  ;  possibly  it  has  its  limits,  but  they  are  not 
so  narrow  as  to  deprive  the  system  of  immense  influ- 
ence. How  far  Socialism  will  spread  in  France  is  of 
course  a  matter  of  guess-work ;  the  total  Socialist  vote 
so  utterly  eclipses  the  figures  of  trade-union  member- 
ship that  they  can  afford  us  no  indications.  About  35 
per  cent  of  the  population  are  employed  in  industry  ;  if 
we  add  to  this  figure  the  10  per  cent  employed  in  com- 
merce, we  find  that  the  result  does  not  equal  even  half 
the  population.  Unless  Socialism  develops  very  con- 
siderably among  the  agriculturists,  which  does  not 
appear  very  likely  at  present,  we  cannot  expect  to  see 
Socialism  spread  to  very  much  more  than  45  per  cent 
of  the  voters,  or  less  than  half 

Where  the  increase  of  power  is  already  being  felt  is, 
however,  not  so  much  in  the  country  as  in  the  party. 
The  extreme  elements  are  gaining  ground ;  in  the 
figures  given  above,  clear  distinctions  are  made  between 
the  three  principal  sections.  The  Radical  Socialists, 
who  polled  about  one-half  of  the  advanced  vote,  are 
sometimes   Socialists    masquerading    as    Radicals    and 

164 


Socialism 

sometimes  Radicals  masquerading  as  Socialists ;  in 
either  case  they  are  always  willing  to  co-operate  with 
Republican  and  Radical  cabinets ;  they  infuse  into 
them  advanced  tendencies,  but  they  are  not  sufficiently 
uncompromising  to  decline  office.  This  is  the  section 
the  disappearance  of  which  will  clear  the  issue  between 
Socialists  and  bourgeois;  the  Radical  Socialists  are 
somewhat  in  the  position  of  the  Liberals  in  Great 
Britain,  whose  fate  it  appears  to  be  to  be  squeezed  out 
of  existence  between  Toryism  and  Labour.  It  is  among 
these  that  the  uncompromising  "Unified  Socialists" 
will  in  future  find  recruits,  as  they  grow  more  advanced, 
as  well  as  among  the  Independent  Socialists.  But 
should  their  total  poll  remain  undiminished  by  the  in- 
evitable defection  of  the  Radical  section  of  the  Radical 
Socialist  party,  should  it  even  swell  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  embrace  the  whole  of  the  industrial  and  commer- 
cial classes,  which  is  very  unlikely,  the  total  membership 
of  the  Socialist  party  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  would 
be  less  than  half  the  House. 

We  are  therefore  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
hopes  of  the  uncompromising  section  in  the  future  lie 
firstly  in  the  absorption  of  the  more  moderate  section 
and  secondly  in  the  conversion  of  the  agricultural  class ; 
how  far  this  is  possible  no  one  can  tell.  It  is  difficult, 
but  the  spread  of  education  may  assist  them  powerfully. 
At  any  rate  it  can  be  confidently  stated  that  the  fortunes 
of  the  party  are  certainly  not  on  the  wane  and  that  every 
circumstance,  every  fluctuation  of  opinion,  brings  new 
recruits  to  the  movement. 

Socialism  has  in  France  the  same  advantage  that  has 
proved  so  important  in  Germany — the  remarkably  keen 
interest  with  which  the  public  follows  the  development 

165 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  the  Socialist  movement.  Not  only  are  Socialist 
newspapers  numerous  and  assured  of  a  good  circulation, 
and  Socialist  pamphlets  and  leaflets  found  everywhere, 
but  a  large  number  of  the  latest  books  are  devoted  to 
social  questions.  The  distinction  that  is  made  in  Great 
Britain  between  social  and  Socialistic  schemes  does  not 
obtain  in  France,  where  the  people  are  divided  in  hori- 
zontal strata :  the  measures  that  are  to  benefit  the  poor 
are  Socialistic  and  the  measures  that  are  to  favour  the 
well-to-do  are  anti-Socialistic,  Schemes  such  as  Garden 
Cities,  Model  Villages,  Co-operative  Societies,  which 
enjoy  in  Great  Britain  the  support  of  both  parties,  are 
in  France  looked  upon  as  frankly  Socialistic.  Thus,  the 
author  who  attacks  a  problem  such  as  alcoholic  degen- 
eracy, the  housing  of  the  poor,  etc.,  is  almost  invariably 
a  Socialist  or  deals  with  the  question  on  Socialistic 
lines. 

In  the  greater  number  of  serious  books  published 
in  France  during  the  last  ten  years,  inclusive  of  those 
deahng  with  foreign  politics  or  science,  we  find  this 
tendency  to  identify  Socialism  with  social  betterment ; 
this  has  not  in  France  the  unfortunate  effects  that  it 
would  have  in  Great  Britain,  where  social  schemes 
receive  the  support  of  the  rich.  In  France  the  rich  are 
few,  and  even  the  well-to-do  classes  are  far  less  generous 
and  public-spirited  than  they  are  in  England.  If  the 
distinction  did  not  exist  in  Great  Britain,  such  organisa- 
tions as  the  Trust  Public  House  Association  or  the 
Garden  City  Association  would  soon  be  starved  out,  as 
the  rich  would  not  assist  groupings  with  "  Socialistic  " 
tendencies.  In  France,  however,  the  wealthy  do  but 
little  in  this  direction,  even  hospitals  being  the  care  of 
the  State ;   thus  it  lies  with  the  Socialistic  parties  to 

1 66 


Socialism 

struggle  for  the  betterment  of  social  conditions  and 
they  naturally  reap  the  credit  of  the  reforms.  When  we 
recollect  how  much  talk  there  is  at  the  present  time  in 
Great  Britain  of  land  questions,  graduated  income  tax, 
housing,  etc.,  we  gather  what  an  inmense  asset  the 
coupling  of  the  word  "  Socialistic  "  with  these  schemes 
is  to  the  Socialist  party. 

Since  the  bourgeois  are  sluggish  in  the  matter,  the 
militant  Socialists  are  the  sole  movers  and  all  the 
literature  on  the  subject  naturally  turns  to  their  advant- 
age ;  add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  drama  makes  an  even 
more  pressing  appeal  and  that  the  playwright  is  often  a 
tribune  in  disguise,  and  a  great  part  of  the  success  of 
French  Socialism  will  be  understood.  The  Socialists 
have  established  a  quasi-monopoly  of  social  questions  ; 
this  is  not  the  case  in  Great  Britain,  where  both  the 
great  parties  are  anxious,  in  a  greater  or  lesser  degree,  to 
improve  social  conditions,  the  Radical  wing  being  of 
course  the  more  energetic,  and  where,  therefore,  the 
Labour  party  are  deprived  of  the  great  advertisement 
that  falls  to  the  lot  of  their  colleagues  oversea. 

Authors,  speakers  and  playwrights  range,  of  course, 
over  a  very  wide  field  ;  all  the  "  social "  interested  are 
more  or  less  Socialistic,  but  their  theories  are  varied  and 
range  between  Anarchism  and  pastoral  Socialism,  in- 
cluding scientific  and  singular  varieties.  In  the  main, 
however,  French  Socialism  has  three  characteristics 
which  are  never  absent  from  the  works  of  its  supporters 
— anti-clericalism,  anti-militarism,  and  humanitarianism. 

With  the  exception  of  the  Christian  Socialists,  who 
are  a  negligible  force,  not  even  possessing  one  member 
in  the  Lower  House,  French  Socialists  are  almost  in- 
variably atheists  ;  they  do  not  stop  at  agnosticism,  nor 

167 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

even  at  anti-clericalism,  but,  regarding  as  they  do  the 
teaching  and  practice  of  any  religion  as  superstition, 
they  violently  inveigh  against  it.  I  do  not  intend  to 
defend  the  view,  but  can  well  understand  how  it  comes 
to  be  held  by  so  many  Frenchmen ;  had  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  been  amenable  to  progress,  had  it 
above  all  not  insisted  on  the  hierarchy  and  class  dis- 
tinctions, it  would  never  have  excited  in  the  hearts  of 
so  many  of  the  people  the  hatred  that  there  exists.  If 
we  cannot  excuse  the  Socialist  party,  we  can  well 
understand  it ;  it  found  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
standing  in  its  way  as  an  ally  of  the  rich  and  naturally 
classed  it  as  an  enemy.  Socialists  were  not  deceived 
by  its  pseudo-democracy  but  saw  in  it  the  champion  of 
ignorance  and  autocracy  and  started  out  to  slay  it  as 
such ;  they  have  been  the  prime  movers  in  its  present, 
and  not  undeserved  abasement  and  may  eventually 
succeed  in  rooting  it  out.  Education  does  not  make 
for  belief  until  it  is  so  far  advanced  as  to  leave  the 
pupil  face  to  face  with  the  Incomprehensible ;  in  the 
earlier  stages,  education  naturally  makes  for  philosophic 
doubt.  Thus  the  spread  of  learning,  which  is  far  greater 
in  France  than  in  Great  Britain,  has  struck  a  fatal  blow 
at  the  Church  and  at  the  same  time  at  religion  ;  whether 
the  present-day  Socialists  are  the  ancestors  of  a  highly 
educated  race  who  will  return  to  belief  when  they  have 
exhausted  the  sum  total  of  human  knowledge,  even  a 
utopist  would  hesitate  to  predict.  One  thing  is  certain, 
and  that  is  that  a  return  to  religious  belief  will  not  be 
a  return  to  the  fold  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  un- 
less that  Church  be  modified  beyond  recognition. 

It  is  not   impossible   that   atheism   among   French 
Socialists   is   traceable,   not   only    to    the   native  and 

1 68 


Socialism 

foreign  philosophers  whose  works  serve  the  party  as 
text-books,  but  also  to  the  fact  that  the  movement  is 
usually  led  by  Freemasons,  Free-thinkers  and  Jews. 
We  must  remember  that  French  Freemasonry  is  a  very 
different  organisation  from  the  one  that  exists  in  Great 
Britain,  where  it  does  not  necessarily  exclude  religious 
belief.  I  do  not,  of  course,  pretend  to  know  whether 
the  secret  statutes  of  the  French  Freemasons  preclude 
a  member  from  professing  a  creed,  but  the  fact  remains 
that  the  forces  of  the  lodges  have  been  cast  in  the 
balance  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Add  to 
this  the  influence  of  the  Jewish  hitellectuels  and  it  will 
be  readily  understood  how  naturally  the  Socialist  party 
has  been  marshalled  against  Romanism. 

The  fight  against  the  Church  has  naturally  enough 
extended  to  a  struggle  with  clericals  of  all  sorts ;  thus 
the  army  itself  has  been  drawn  into  the  vortex.  Its 
very  existence  is  distasteful  to  the  Socialist  party, 
which  in  all  countries  is  naturally  an  anti-militarist 
group.  Socialism,  by  virtue  of  its  conception  of  nation- 
ality, is  in  itself  opposed  to  war,  so  that  armies  can 
only  appear  to  it  in  the  light  of  useless  or  noxious  in- 
stitutions. The  remarkable  spread  of  anti-militarism 
among  the  Socialists  and  their  political  allies,  the 
advanced  Radicals,  is  remarkable  when  we  remember 
how  warlike  the  French  race  is ;  their  history  is  richer 
in  wars  than  that  of  any  important  European  nation,  but 
the  fact  that  wars  have  always  been  popular  in  France  is 
explained  by  the  habit  of  victory  contracted  by  French 
armies.  From  the  days  of  Francois  I  to  those  of  the 
war  with  Germany,  with  but  few  interludes  of  defeat, 
provided  as  a  rule  by  British  gold  and  by  British  men,'' 
the  military  career  of  France  has  ever  been  a  glorious 

169 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

one,  whether  her  sons  marched  under  the  lilies,  the 
eagle  or  the  tricolour.  Thus  the  nation  became  natur- 
ally warlike ;  a  large  section  of  the  people,  mainly  the 
peasantry,  took  but  little  interest  in  these  matters,  but 
the  more  turbulent  townsmen  were  ever  ready  for  the 
fray  on  the  slightest  provocation. 

The  defeats  of  1870  seem,  however,  to  have  powerfully 
contributed  to  the  moderating  of  these  restless  spirits ; 
the  war  was  so  short  and  so  ruthless,  the  disaster  so 
appalling  and  utter,  that  a  subtle,  pre-natal  influence 
appears  to  have  rooted  out  of  the  French  the  lust  for 
battle.  After  that  terrible  year,  the  nation  sighed  for 
peace  and  for  time  to  rebuild  its  ruined  homesteads  ; 
reconstruction  was  rapid,  so  rapid  that  even  before 
M.  Thiers,  the  "  Liberator  of  the  Land,"  had  finished  his 
work,  prosperity  was  returning  to  France  and  that,  a  few 
years  later,  Germany,  seeing  her  quondam  foe  recover 
beyond  all  expectation,  seriously  considered  another 
onslaught.  But  returning  wealth  and  power  were  not 
followed  by  a  recrudescence  of  militarism ;  except 
among  those  who  had  seen  the  German  scythe  drawn 
across  the  fields  of  France,  animosity  lay  dormant,  and 
it  has,  since  then,  never  wakened  to  action.  True,  the 
two  nations  are  not  on  friendly  terms,  but  there  is  no 
question  of  even  a  smouldering  volcano  :  France  no 
longer  concerns  herself  with  the  lost  provinces. 

Such  being  the  "non-military"  attitude  of  the  great 
mass  of  the  people,  no  serious  opposition  has  ever  been 
offered  to  the  anti-militarist  agitation  of  the  Socialist 
party.  The  "Nationalist"  party  attempted,  during 
the  Dreyfus  proceedings,  to  revive  public  feeling,  but 
their  efforts  only  ended  in  total  defeat,  a  fortunate 
occurrence   in    view   of   the    irresponsible   and   hostile 

170 


Socialism 

attitude  that  they  adopt  towards  all  foreign  powers. 
The  "Nationalists"  are  the  party  of  war,  of  colonial 
adventure,  of  wanton  aggression  against  the  foreigner 
for  no  other  reason  than  because  he  is  the  foreigner. 
They  are  the  sworn  foes  of  the  Socialists,  and  all  true 
lovers  of  peace  will  welcome  their  defeat,  even  at  the 
hands  of  a  party  which  they  fear. 

The  principal  exponents  of  anti-militarism  are  doubt- 
less M.  Herve,  M.  Urbain  Gohier  and  M.  Anatole 
France.  The  first  is  a  professor  who  carried  even 
into  the  class-room  his  hatred  for  militarism  in  any 
form.  For  this  M.  Herve  was  dismissed  and  has  since 
become  a  force  in  the  country,  whose  lead  is  followed 
by  the  more  active  section  of  the  party.  M.  Anatole 
France,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  journalist  and  writer  of 
the  highest  attainments,  whose  influence  is  considerable, 
thanks  to  his  literary  gifts.  But,  though  these  names 
occur  to  me  im.mediately  in  connection  with  anti- 
militarism  apart  from  Socialism,  practically  every 
Socialist  leader  is  an  opponent  of  the  army ;  it  is  very 
doubtful  whether  all  their  supporters  are  of  the  same 
mind,  but  the  great  majority  would  certainly  endorse 
any  action  taken  by  their  chiefs. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  recent  split  between  Radicals 
and  Socialists  was  caused  by  this  very  question,  but  it 
is  not  likely  to  be  permanent,  for  the  less  violent  section 
of  the  Socialist  party,  as  represented  by  MM.  Jaures, 
Allemane,  Guesde,  Brousse,  de  Pressense,  Vaillant, 
etc.,  acknowledge  that  under  present  conditions  it  is 
impossible  to  dispense  with  armies  and  navies ;  they 
realise  that  non-simultaneous  disarmament  would  only 
mean  the  rapid  annexation  or  partition  of  France  and 
her    incorporation    into   a    powerful    military   system 

171 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

utterly  opposed  to  their  ideals.  The  more  advanced 
section  of  the  anti-militarists  view  this  prospect  with 
equanimity,  as  they  expect  to  propagate  their  doctrine 
among  the  people,  whoever  the  ruler  may  be ;  they  do 
not  realise  that  this  is  a  fallacy,  as  the  acceptance  of 
militarism  would  only  be  putting  back  the  clock. 

To  the  anti-militarist  programme  of  the  moderate 
Socialists,  however,  sympathy  cannot  be  refused. 
Roughly  speaking,  it  consists  in  accepting  the  status 
quo,  in  working  diligently  for  disarmament  in  con- 
junction with  similar  foreign  parties,  and  more  es- 
pecially in  the  cementing  of  an  understanding  with 
foreign  democracies.  Disarmament  would,  of  course, 
be  viewed  with  favour  by  most  men  of  enlightened 
views,  but  it  is  practically  impossible  to  hope  for  it 
as  long  as  one  nation,  and  that  is  Germany,  still 
cherishes  ambitions  of  world-power.  The  German 
desire  for  expansion  is  perfectly  normal ;  the  position 
of  this  Empire,  practically  coastless,  threatened  with 
hostile  tariffs  abroad,  and  blessed  or  cursed  with  an 
ever-increasing  population,  is  an  anomaly.  Territorial 
expansion  is  a  necessity  for  Germany  if  nationality  is 
to  remain  the  basis  of  government.  It  is  this  fact 
which  the  Socialists  recognise  so  clearly,  and  it  explains 
their  efforts  to  suppress  the  national  idea  and  to  root 
out  the  prejudices  that  exist  against  the  foreigner. 

The  spread  of  Socialistic  theories  makes  for  peace, 
and  the  party  hopes  to  attain  its  ends,  before  even 
it  has  converted  more  than  a  portion  of  the  world,  by 
this  understanding  between  democracies  mentioned 
above.  The  scheme  is  simple  enough ;  Socialists  are  to 
be  grouped  in  each  country  under  a  central  organisation 
which,  when  powerful  enough,  will  be  able  to  control 

172 


Socialism 

governments  or,  in  the  meantime,  to  make  treaties 
of  neutrality  with  other  democracies.  Thus  would  be 
constituted  a  state  within  the  State  ;  it  might  ultimately- 
become  sufficiently  strong  to  suppress  war  by  vetoing 
the  levies  of  working  men,  who  must  inevitably  supply 
the  bulk  of  the  "  food  for  powder,"  or  "  gunflesh  "  as  the 
French  pithily  call  it.  The  scheme  may  appear  im- 
practicable, as  he  who  wields  military  power  for  the 
time  being  would  always  be  able  to  remove  the  Execu- 
tive of  the  Democracy ;  moreover  the  divisions  that 
must  inevitably  arise  in  the  Socialist  camp,  in  most 
countries,  would  always  militate  against  the  constitution 
of  a  strong  central  organisation.  However  remote  may 
be  the  prospect  of  friendly  democracies  agreeing  to 
abstain  from  war,  we  must  admit  that  the  ever-increas- 
ing influence  of  the  Socialists  makes  for  peace.  The 
attitude  of  British  Labour  is  not  yet  quite  clear  on 
this  point,  mainly  because  it  has  not  yet  entirely 
thrown  off  its  connection  with  trade  unionism  ;  when 
it  decides  to  do  so  and  its  candidates  openly  declare 
themselves  Socialists,  it  is  practically  certain  that  it  will 
fall  into  line  with  the  following  of  M.  Jaures  and  M. 
Bebel. 

Pacific  action  of  this  nature  will  be  easy  in  France 
because  the  tendency  of  the  party  is  apparently  towards 
State  Socialism  ;  if  it  were  towards  Municipalism  or 
Collectivism,  dreams  of  disarmament  would  be  dreams 
indeed,  as  there  would  be  but  little  cohesion  between 
component  parts  of  the  State.  We  are  often  told  that 
State  Socialism  is  in  disgrace,  but  there  is  hardly  any 
alternative  when  the  people  take  no  interest  in  local 
affairs ;  moreover  it  is  most  easily  put  into  practice, 
owing  to  the  vast  resources  which  the  State  controls. 

173 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
it  is  for  this  reason  that,  from  the  chaos  in  which  many 
earnest  Socialists  are  plunged,  emerges  a  strong  section 
of  State  Socialists  who  know  what  they  want  and  how 
to  attain  their  ends.  The  usual  charge  levelled  at  State 
Socialism  is  nowhere  more  appropriate  than  it  is  in 
France ;  the  rock  on  which  it  must  infallibly  break, 
according  to  the  opponents  of  Socialism,  is  the  over-cen- 
tralisation of  government  and  the  concomitant  creation 
of  an  all-powerful  bureaucracy.  There  is  probably  no 
country  in  the  world  where  government  is  so  centralised 
in  the  capital  as  it  is  in  France  ;  local  authorities  look 
for  guidance  to  the  Paris  Executive  and  not  to  local 
opinion,  unless  the  latter  be  controlled  by  a  caucus  ; 
matters  of  the  importance  of  the  parish  pump  pass 
through  a  complicated  series  of  inquiries  made  by  the 
sous-prefets  (local  executives)  and  prcfets,  whose  de- 
cision is  usually  subordinated  to  the  orders  of  Ministers. 
Thus,  it  may  be  concluded  that  this  strong  organisation, 
the  origin  of  which  is  due  to  the  first  Napoleon,  has  so 
deeply  influenced  the  French  for  the  last  hundred  years 
as  to  make  them  naturally  inclined  towards  bureau- 
cratic government.  The  mind  of  the  people  is  there- 
fore fairly  well  prepared  for  the  acceptance  of  State 
Socialism. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  it  is  not  extraordinary  that, 
along  with  agitation  in  favour  of  the  usual  necessary 
means  of  social  progress,  such  as  old  age  pensions, 
graduated  income  tax,  compulsory  insurance,  etc.,  there 
is  a  strong  movement  towards  general  nationalisation. 
In  Great  Britain  the  tendency  is  to  municipalise  every- 
thing ;  in  France  nationalisation  appears  simpler.  How 
both  these  systems  can  be  reconciled  with  the  tempera- 
ment of  the  people  is  easily  understood  when  we  see 

174 


Socialism 

how  the  British  interest  in  local  affairs  goes  hand  in 
hand  with  municipalisation,  whilst  the  French  apathy  in 
this  respect  enhances  the  attractions  of  State  Socialism. 
The  French  Government  has,  moreover,  a  solid  basis 
for  nationalisation,  as  it  is  already  in  possession  of 
monopolies  of  very  great  importance.  It  is  opportune 
to  recall  here  that  State  Socialism  embraces  "  any 
profitable  operation  undertaken  by  the  State  in  compe- 
tition with  or  to  the  exclusion  of  private  enterprise " ; 
this  must  be  understood  in  its  widest  sense,  such 
systems  as  the  Post  Office  or  the  British  shareholding 
in  the  Suez  Canal  being  consistent  with  State  Socialism. 
The  Republic  has,  of  course,  the  monopoly  of  postal 
carriage  and  of  the  telegraphic  system,  to  which  are 
added  the  telephones,  but  it  has  more  solid  and  typical 
assets  even  than  these.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  the 
tobacco  and  lucifer  match  monopolies,  some  of  the  most 
valuable  in  the  world,  as  they  yield  about  ;^i 8,000,000 
per  annum  or  nearly  12  per  cent  of  the  average  expendi- 
ture of  the  State.  Of  course  the  origin  of  the  tobacco 
monopoly  must  be  traced  to  Napoleon  I,  who  was 
certainly  not  a  Socialist,  and  who  established  it  only 
ibecause  his  business-like  mind  saw  in  it  a  valuable  and 
not  oppressive  source  of  revenue.  In  this  case  Napo- 
leon I  was  a  Socialist  sans  le  savoir,  just  as  may  be 
the  peaceful  citizen  who  supports  municipal  tram- 
ways. The  industry  is  practically  in  the  hands  of  the 
State  ;  no  tobacco  may  be  grown  without  official  sanc- 
tion or  free  from  supervision,  nor  may  the  produce  be 
sold  to  any  but  the  State ;  government  factories  under- 
take the  preparation  of  all  tobaccos  and  government 
shops  retail  them  to  the  public.  This  monopoly  is, 
therefore,  an  ideal  instance  of  Socialism,  for  the  State 

175 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
plays  the  role  both  of  manufacturer  and  merchant ;  as  it 
makes   very  substantial    profits  and   produces  a  good 
article^  at  fair  rates,  it  serves  as  a  valuable  instance  of 
the  possibilities  of  State  Socialism. 

Playing-cards  are  also  a  monopoly,  but  no  particular 
interest  attaches  to  it ;  it  is  also  profitable  but  yields  in 
interest  to  the  more  important  asset  represented  by  the 
forest  lands.  The  forests  of  France  are  in  the  hands 
of  the  State  to  the  extent  of  about  sixty  per  cent  of 
their  total  area  ;  they  were  appropriated  by  the  Govern- 
ment when  the  clergy  and  the  aristocrats  were  dis- 
possessed of  them  by  the  Revolution,  since  when  they 
have  always  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  departevtents 
or  of  the  State.  They  cannot  be  compared  with  the 
British  Crown  Lands,  the  income  from  which,  according 
to  Mr.  C.  S.  Jones  (in  the  World's  Work),  averages  half 
a  million  per  annum.  Ten  per  cent  of  the  total  area  of 
France  is  wooded,  so  that  the  State  is  in  possession  of 
some  six  per  cent  of  the  soil ;  if  we  add  to  the  forest 
the  national  estates,  which  are  not  numerous,  we  arrive 
at  a  total  yearly  net  yield  of  ;^2, 300,000,  a  far  larger 
figure  than  similar  property  produces  in  this  country. 
It  should  be  mentioned,  as  a  side  issue,  that  an  addi- 
tional advantage  is  derived  from  the  power  thus  vested 
in  the  State,  to  control  afforestation  and  to  prevent  the 
reckless  felling  of  timber  practised  in  England  and 
Scotland  to  the  prejudice  of  climate  and  agriculture. 

These  two  great  monopolies  form  the  basis  on  which 
the  machinery  of  French  State  Socialism  rests.  Those 
inclined  to  increase  its  scope  turn  naturally  towards  the 
railway  system,  part  of  which  is  already  in  the  hands  of 

^  I  refer  to  tobacco  only  ;  for  unknown  reasons  matches  are  in  France 
both  bad  and  dear. 

176 


Socialism 

the  Government.  These  lines  pay  their  way  and  make 
a  small  profit  on  low  rates,  in  spite  of  their  being  the 
inheritance  of  bankrupt  companies.  In  course  of  time, 
between  1950  and  i960,  owing  to  the  terms  of  their 
concessions,  the  existing  companies  will  transfer  all 
their  property  to  the  State,  which  will  then  be  in  posses- 
sion of  a  splendid  system,  well  co-ordinated  and  ex- 
tending over  twenty-five  thousand  miles.  The  tendency 
is  however  already  making  itself  felt,  as  the  buying  out 
of  the  companies  has  been  several  times  proposed,  and 
a  Bill  is  even  now  before  Parliament  to  provide  for  a 
beginning  with  the  Compagnie  de  V Quest. 

Roughly  speaking,  any  highly  centralised  industry  is 
suitable  for  State  Socialism  ;  when  a  trust  has  crushed 
out  competition  and  has  spread  over  the  whole  of  the 
country,  nothing  is  easier  than  to  install  the  State  as 
controller.  No  objection  can  be  taken  to  the  process,  if 
it  be  possible  to  secure  efficient  management,  an  easy 
matter  if  the  State  be  ready  to  pay  the  price.  Such 
systems  as  the  Russian  monopoly  of  the  liquor  traffic 
are  both  health-giving  and  profitable,  whether  their 
tendency  be  Socialistic  or  not. 

With  these  remarks  on  State  Socialism  we  may  close 
this  chapter.  The  foregoing  observations  cannot  but 
lead  the  reader  to  understand  that  Socialism  is  in 
France  a  very  vigorous  force ;  I  do  not  deny  that  it  is 
divided  against  itself,  as  is  always  the  case  in  advanced 
parties  :  the  discord  that  reigns  among  British  Liberals 
is  an  instance  of  the  fact.  The  parties  that  group  the 
more  democratic  sections  of  tho>  people  invariably  attract, 
not  only  the  reformer,  but  the  crank  who  has  specialised 
in  a  subject  and  whose  views  accord  thereupon  with 
those  of  the  party  but  differ  on  other  questions.  This 
N  177 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
is  a  source  of  weakness,  as  it  can  at  any  time  provoke  a 
cleavage,  but  it  is  inevitable  and  only  tends  to  prove 
that  the  adherents  of  the  advanced  parties  have  views 
of  their  own  which  they  are  anxious  to  uphold,  instead 
of  following  submissively  the  lead  of  their  chief.  More- 
over, little  by  little  the  more  extreme  section  asserts 
itself  and  absorbs  the  more  advanced  portion  of  its 
immediate  neighbour ;  then,  after  a  period  of  quies- 
cence, the  process  is  repeated,  and  the  party  views  are 
restated.  We  see  the  process  in  Great  Britain  where 
Whig  electors  slowly  evolve  towards  either  Toryism 
or  Radicalism  and  where  the  trade  unions  are  being 
drawn  into  the  fold  of  the  Socialist  party.  In  France, 
the  Unified  Socialists,  with  their  understandable  pro- 
gramme of  independent  action  and  "no  co-operation" 
as  a  shibboleth,  are  absorbing  the  weaker  and  more 
undecided  groups ;  in  course  of  time  they  will  have 
mustered  all  their  available  strength,  when  we  shall 
assist  at  the  struggle,  no  longer  between  parties  the 
hues  of  which  are  near  neighbours  on  the  political 
spectrum,  but  between,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Republican 
party  as  a  representative  of  individualism  and,  on  the 
other,  the  massed  forces  of  the  Socialist  party.  What 
education  and  evolution  may  hold  in  reserve  for  the 
French  Republic  I  do  not  profess  to  predict,  but  there 
is  no  doubt  that  extremism  is  at  present  at  a  premium 
and  its  success,  though  not  yet  in  sight,  may  well 
exceed  the  most  sanguine  expectations  of  its  most 
earnest  exponents. 


CHAPTER    IX 
TRADE    UNIONISM  AND  CO-OPERATION 

IF  we  accepted  the  broadest  interpretation  of  the  term 
"  Socialism,"  the  chapter  on  Socialism  in  France 
should  have  included  details  on  the  above  subjects. 
Trade  Unionism  is  not  in  itself  Socialistic  and  Co- 
operation is  even  less  so,  but  both  are  so  closely  allied 
to  Socialism  that  they  are  often  identified  with  it. 
They  are  in  a  sense,  whether  their  promoters  know  it 
or  not,  steps  leading  up  to  the  larger  policy  of  Socialism, 
and  those  who  support  their  principles  are  generally  in 
the  end  drawn  towards  Collectivism. 

Except  for  this,  Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 
have  but  little  in  common  and  are  grouped  under  a 
common  heading  only  because  their  supporters  are  re- 
cruited from  the  same  class  ;  we  may  therefore  proceed 
to  consider  them  separately,  beginning  with  Trade 
Unionism. 

The  origin  of  Trade  Unions  is  rarely  traceable  to 
Socialistic  propaganda,  except  in  the  case  of  those 
which  have  been  formed  during  the  last  decade  ;  as 
regards  these,  Socialists  found  it  easier  to  induce  the 
workers  to  join  a  Trade  Union  than  a  Socialist  league, 
just  as  certain  "  Labour "  candidates  in  Great  Britain 
find  that  label  more  acceptable  than  that  of  "  Socialist." 
In   France,  as  in    Great  Britain,  the  older  and   more 

179 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

powerful  Unions  were  at  their  inception  intended  to 
advance  the  interests  of  the  workers,  to  obtain  for 
them  shorter  hours,  higher  wages  and  better  conditions 
of  labour,  and  to  provide  them  with  medical  attendance 
and  other  assistance  when  sick  or  unemployed.  Trade 
Unions  were  and  are  to  this  day  great  friendly  societies 
and  can  boast  of  much  creditable  work ;  the  Trade 
Unionist  is  usually  the  pick  of  the  working  class ;  this 
may  be  because  the  Unions  are  only  flourishing  among 
skilled  workmen,  but  it  is  more  probably  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  education  in  the  principles  of  solidarity 
and  mutual  help  that  is  thus  given  the  unit  raises  him 
above  the  plane  of  his  fellow-workers. 

In  Great  Britain,  this  state  of  things  prevails  to  this 
day,  though  there  are  obvious  signs  that  the  Socialistic 
spirit  is  slowly  permeating  the  Unions  and  bids  fair  to 
transform  them  into  political  machines ;  yet,  the  main 
object  of  Trade  Unions  is  still  the  provision  of  their 
members  with  benefits,  to  which  should  be  added  labour 
bureaux  and,  in  certain  cases,  old  age  pension  and 
building  schemes.  In  France,  Trade  Unionism  is  seen 
in  a  rather  different  hght.  Benefits  to  members  are  not 
the  principal  object  of  combination,  because  the  thrifty 
and  frugal  French  workman,  blessed  in  most  cases  with 
a  domesticated  and  intelligent  wife,  is  wise  enough  not 
to  dissipate  his  earnings  ;  there  is  no  need  to  lay  to  the 
charge  of  the  British  workman  those  vices  with  which 
the  middle  classes  systematically  credit  him.  I  do  not 
deny,  in  view  of  the  exhaustive  investigation  which 
preceded  the  writing  of  a  previous  volume,^  that  the 
British  workman  is  often  drunken  and  thriftless, 
but  drunkenness  and  thriftlessness  are  to  a  certain 
^  Engines  of  Social  Progress,  A.  &  C.  Black,  1907. 
J  80 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

extent  British  and  cold-country  traits  from  which  the 
middle  classes  are  not  exempt ;  if  such  appalling  squalor 
prevails  in  our  great  cities,  if  so  many  members  of  the 
working  classes  are  vicious  and  drunken,  it  is  mainly 
because  housing  conditions  are  so  indescribably  bad  and 
because  lax  and  unintelligent  application  of  the  licensing 
laws  has  resulted  in  the  multiplication  of  pitfalls.  We 
cannot  here  enter  into  a  full  comparison  of  French  and 
British  workmen,  as  this  would  necessitate  an  analysis 
of  the  national  character ;  it  is,  however,  easy  to  show 
how  the  position  in  which  workers  of  both  nations  are 
placed  has  influenced  their  attitude  towards  Trade 
Unionism.  The  housing  question  exists  in  French  as 
well  as  in  English  towns,  but  to  a  lesser  degree ;  in  rural 
districts  difficulties  on  this  score  are  practically  unknown. 
As  regards  the  cities,  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek  :  there 
are  no  great  landlords  in  France,  owning  an  entire 
neighbourhood.  Most  landholders  possess  one  or  two 
houses  ;  to  own  a  street  is  unusual  in  Paris,  which  should 
strike  us  as  astonishing  when  we  remember  how  in 
London  a  single  landlord  often  owns  the  freehold  of  an 
entire  postal  district.  Thus  competition  is  keen  and 
rents  are  cut  as  low  as  possible,  so  that  a  large  margin 
remains  for  food  and  other  necessaries.  French  work- 
men are  not  rack-rented  as  they  are  in  Great  Britain  ; 
they  are  not  packed  in  droves  in  some  infamous  slum, 
where  they  may  toil  or  die  for  the  benefit  of  a  wealthy 
absentee.  Thus  a  certain  degree  of  prosperity  is  ensured 
and  a  civilising  influence  brought  to  bear  on  the  worker  ; 
whoever  chooses  to  converse  with  the  French  workman 
will  soon  realise  that  he  is  almost  invariably  an  educated 
man  ;  this  is  in  great  part  due  to  intelligent  teaching 
and  to  the  existence  of  universal  suffrage. 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

I  need  not  dilate  on  the  Housing  question  ;  books 
and  pamphlets  dealing  with  it  fully  are  very  numerous, 
so  that  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  good  housing 
naturally  tends  to  the  raising  of  the  working  class. 
The  French  workman  is  not  only  comfortably  housed 
(in  this  sense  that  he  can  nearly  always  afford  at  least 
two  rooms  for  himself  and  his  family),  but  he  benefits 
by  the  fact  that  his  wife  is  usually  a  competent  house- 
keeper ;  the  appalling  and  notorious  ignorance  of  work- 
ing girls  as  regards  these  matters  is  becoming  more 
and  more  serious  in  Great  Britain,  in  consequence  of 
the  extension  of  female  labour  to  all  branches  of  trade. 
The  French  housewife  is  naturally  careful  and  eco- 
nomical ;  indeed,  in  a  family  she  often  has  the  better 
share  of  brains  and  controls  the  household  with  un- 
questioned ability ;  she  possesses  the  art  of  cooking, 
which  is  not  so  natural  as  it  is  thought  in  this  country, 
but  is  carefully  handed  down  from  mother  to  daughter. 
Thus  there  is  no  waste  ;  meals  are  well  prepared  and 
the  home  is  clean  and  neat.  The  French  working  man, 
well  housed  and  well  fed,  is  not  tempted  to  fly  to  the 
public-house ;  in  Great  Britain,  where  he  often  suffers 
untold  miseries  in  his  home,  its  costly  hospitality  is  his 
only  resource  and  the  natural  result  is  chronic  poverty. 
Lastly,  the  French  race  is  said  not  to  be  very  prolific, 
though  personal  observation  induces  one  to  think  that 
the  birthrate  is  kept  down  only  by  the  level-headedness 
of  the  people,  and  thus  working-class  households  are 
not  afflicted,  as  they  are  in  Great  Britain,  with  an  end- 
less succession  of  children,  whose  fate  it  is  to  be  ill- 
housed,  ill-fed  and  ill-educated. 

As  a  result  of  these  three  factors,  good  housing,  good 
housewifery  and  small  families,  the  French  workman 

182 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

finds  himself  in  a  far  better  position  than  does  the 
artisan  in  this  country.  He  is  able  and  willing  to  save 
part  of  his  wages,  so  that  he  can  face  with  more 
equanimity  the  prospect  of  unemployment,  sickness  or 
old  age.  It  is  not  the  exception,  but  the  rule,  for  the 
French  workman  to  have  a  savings  bank  account  and 
many,  in  course  of  time,  amass  enough  to  secure  for 
themselves  an  independence  during  their  declining 
years.  The  French  workman,  being  naturally  inclined 
towards  economy,  has  not  to  so  great  an  extent  as  the 
British  artisan  felt  it  necessary  to  secure  the  support  of 
a  friendly  society  ;  an  individualist  by  nature,  he  prefers 
to  manage  his  own  money  matters  and  to  invest  his 
savings  himself  instead  of  paying  them  into  the  coffers 
of  benefit  societies.  To  this,  in  great  part,  we  can 
trace  the  financial  power  of  France.  The  interesting 
fact  is  that  Trade  Unionism  has  never,  in  France,  held 
the  same  position  as  in  Great  Britain ;  it  has  always 
been  a  political  fighting  machine  for  the  righting  of  the 
workers'  wrongs  and  liable  to  be  directed  against  the 
social  system.  It  is  for  this  reason  that,  though  Trade 
Unions  are  not  necessarily  Socialistic  and  may  be 
inimical  to  Socialism,  yet,  in  France  at  any  rate,  tho<e 
Unions  which  were  formed  with  the  same  ideals  as 
those  in  Great  Britain  have  by  a  kind  of  natural  evolu- 
tion resolved  themselves  into  Socialistic  groups. 

Human  organisations  require  exercise  as  much  as 
does  the  human  body ;  a  league  or  society  which 
remains  inactive  and  does  not  from  time  to  time  justify 
its  existence  very  soon  decays  and  dies.  Such  supine 
bodies  even  as  the  livery  companies  have  recognised 
the  fact  and,  in  consequence,  devote  the  energies  left 
them  by  feasting  to  the  conducting  of  schools  and  to 

183 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

other  charitable  work  ;  French  Trade  Unions,  finding 
that  there  was  no  great  demand  for  pecuniary  benefits 
and  that  subscriptions  would  not  be  drawn  into  their 
coffers  by  the  proffering  of  mutual  assistance,  had  to 
seek  an  outlet  for  the  activity  of  their  leaders,  who  are 
usually  of  the  firebrand  type.  In  France  the  worker 
would  be  contented  enough,  as  he  is  so  fully  conscious 
of  his  well-being  that  emigration  is  a  negligible  quan- 
tity, if  it  were  not  for  his  consuming  hatred  for  the 
bourgeois  class.  He  is  ignorant  of  the  difficulties 
that,  partly  by  their  own  fault,  beset  the  path  of  the 
middle  classes,  of  their  never-ceasing  efforts  to  main- 
tain a  state  that  they  cannot  afford  and  extends  an 
impartial  hatred  to  all  who  wear  a  black  coat.  This  is 
easily  understood,  as  appearances  are  certainly  against 
the  detested  class,  but  whether  this  hatred  be  reason- 
able or  not  is  immaterial  ;  the  interesting  point  is  that 
the  bourgeois  are  an  object  of  extreme  dislike  and 
that  the  prospect  of  subverting  social  conditions  looms 
very  favourably  in  the  vision  of  French  workmen,  as  is 
shown  by  the  enormous  Socialist  poll. 

The  leaders  of  French  Trade  Unions  realise  this  very 
clearly  and  find  it  essential  to  make  their  organisations 
fighting  machines  ;  their  funds  are  devoted  mainly  to 
the  support  of  Socialist  candidatures  to  local  and 
parliamentary  dignities,  to  the  running  of  Socialist 
newspapers  and  more  especially  to  the  fomenting  of 
strikes.  Strikes  are  the  principal  outlet  for  the  activi- 
ties of  those  politicians  who  control  Trade  Unions ; 
they  become  ever  more  frequent  and  acute  as  the 
Unions  grow  in  numbers  and  in  power.  The  strike  is 
looked  upon,  not  only  as  a  means  of  forcing  capital  to 
disgorge  its  gains,  as  is  invariably  the  case  in  Great 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

Britain,  but  as  a  demonstration  directed  against  an 
unpopular  government.  There  are  many  cases  in 
which  cessation  of  labour  is  brought  about  by  a  regular 
campaign  conducted  by  professional  agitators  ;  where 
no  wrongs  exist,  the  feeling  ever  latent  among  the 
workers  that  they  are  being  defrauded  of  their  due  is 
flattered  and  exasperated  until  they  are  ready  to  come 
out.  The  Trade  Union  funds  are  then  used  to  provide 
strike  pay  and  to  subsidise  Paris  newspapers  in  order 
to  enlist  public  sympathy  and  exert  pressure  on  the 
Government  through  friendly  parliamentarians. 

When  a  strike  takes  place  in  Great  Britain,  it  almost 
invariably  proceeds  from  some  cause  of  dissatisfaction, 
such  as  insanitary  conditions,  arbitrary  action  of  the 
masters  or  general  bad  times ;  it  is  rather  unusual 
(except  among  miners)  for  a  strike  to  be  provoked  by 
the  knowledge  that  profits  are  so  large  that  masters  can 
be  coerced  into  granting  better  wages  or  shorter  hours. 
In  England,  when  times  are  good,  employment  is  fairly 
general  and  the  workers  are  not  inclined  to  jeopardise 
their  individual  position,  but  such  is  not  the  case  in 
France.  I  do  not  for  a  moment  say  that  French  strikes 
are  never  justified  by  existing  conditions,  as  some  of 
the  most  important  were  rightly  directed  against  danger- 
ous trades  and  had  as  an  object  the  prevention  of  such 
terrible  diseases  as  necrosis  or  saturnia;  French  strikes, 
however,  are  usually,  and  especially  at  the  present  time, 
engineered  by  agitators,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact 
that  they  often  fail  owing  to  the  lax  response  of  the 
workers,  many  of  whom  are  quite  willing  to  become 
blacklegs. 

Trade  Unions  can,  therefore,  be  looked  upon  as 
engines  of  Socialistic  propaganda ;  most  French  Trade 

1 8s 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Unionists  vote  for  Socialist  candidates,  the  "  Liberal- 
Labour  "  members  who  are  a  noteworthy  feature  in  the 
British  Parliament  being  practically  inexistent  in  France. 
Though  all  Socialists  are  not  Trade  Unionists,  most 
Trade  Unionists  are  Socialists  ;  this  is  normal  enough 
when  we  remember  that  all  parties  are  relative,  and 
that  the  "  advanced  Liberal "  of  the  thirties  may  be  the 
reactionary  of  the  forties.  Though  it  is  often  claimed 
that  British  Trade  Unionists  number  as  many  Con- 
servatives as  they  do  Radicals,  it  can  hardly  be  main- 
tained that  the  Labour  candidate  does  not  poll  the 
greater  part  of  their  votes,  simply  because  he  is  more 
advanced.  What  the  Radical  is  to  the  Tory  in  Great 
Britain,  the  Socialist  is  to  the  Republican  in  France ; 
thus  a  similar  phenomenon  to  the  above  is  noticeable 
in  France,  where  the  Trade  Unionist  naturally  votes 
for  the  more  extreme  candidate  who  is,  in  that  country, 
a  member  of  the  Socialist  party. 

The  influence  of  the  party  "  boss "  is  perhaps  less 
strong  than  it  is  in  Great  Britain,  where  the  Labour 
candidate  put  up  by  a  Trade  Union  can  count  upon 
the  vote  of  practically  every  one  of  its  members ;  French 
workers  are  neither  so  powerfully  organised,  nor  so 
docile  as  the  British  ;  canvassing  and  electioneering  are 
in  their  infancy,  in  great  part  owing  to  the  keen  interest 
that  the  people  take  in  politics.  This  interest  is  mainly 
due  to  the  introduction  of  universal  suffrage,  as  a  result 
of  which  every  man  has  a  stake  in  the  contest.  In 
certain  parts  of  the  country,  particularly  in  mining 
districts,  Trade  Unionists  are  wont  to  follow  the  lead 
of  their  group-president  but,  as  a  rule,  they  vote  as 
they  choose,  and  Socialist  seats  would  often  be  im- 
perilled but  for  the  second  ballot. 

1 86 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

Though  the  Trade  Union  vote  is  not  in  itself  over- 
whelming, as  will  be  shown  further  on  when  dealing  with 
"  Yellow "  Syndicates,  it  is  important  when  we  look 
upon  it  as  part  of  the  Socialist  vote.  It  is  not  assuming 
too  much  to  say  that  Trade  Unionists  vote  Socialist  to 
the  extent  of  ninety  per  cent,  and  the  value  of  this 
contingent  will  be  gauged  from  the  following  figures. 
According  to  the  Bulletin  de  r  Office  du  Travail,  an 
official  publication  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  on  the 
1st  of  January  1906,  the  membership  of  French  Trade 
Unions  was  836,134;  at  the  normal  rate  of  increase  it 
should  now  be  900,000  (including  about  73,000  women), 
comprising  about  5000  Unions.  Seventy  per  cent  of 
these  Unions  have  combined  for  political  purposes  and 
aggregate  over  three-quarters  of  a  million  members, 
who  represent  the  effective  fighting  force.  The  figures 
of  agricultural  syndicates  are  also  available  but,  as 
they  consist  mainly  of  farmers  and  number  few 
labourers,  their  total  of  700,000  cannot  be  taken  into 
consideration  as  regards  the  Socialist  vote.  The  num- 
ber, 900,000,  must  be  taken  as  a  basis  when  we  wish  to 
appraise  the  value  of  the  Trade  Union  vote ;  it  is  not 
very  large  compared  with  the  2,000,000  British  Trade 
Unionists,  nor  can  assets  be  compared  with  those  of 
unions  in  this  country.  French  individualism  and 
French  prosperity  have  stood  in  the  way  of  their  ex- 
tension, and  their  growth  is,  if  anything,  rather  slow. 

Trade  Unions  are,  of  course,  flourishing  mainly  in 
large  towns  ;  Paris  and  its  neighbourhood  account  for 
nearly  300,000  members,  or  a  third  of  the  total,  the 
mining  country  in  the  north  coming  next  with  115,000: 
the  iron  trades  of  the  St.  Etienne  district  aggregate 
56,000;    the    south   of    France    is    also    under   Trade 

187 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Union  influence,  though  their  large  membership  is 
rather  a  demonstration  of  hostility  to  the  existing  state 
of  things  than  an  indication  that  constructive  work  is 
contemplated.  The  foregoing  figures  are  important, 
for  they  show  that  Trade  Unionists  are  practically 
merged  in  the  Socialist  ranks  ;  those  districts  where  the 
Unions  are  powerful  returned  Socialists  to  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  at  the  last  election  and  contributed  largely 
to  the  triumph  of  that  party.  As  the  poll  in  1906  was 
the  heaviest  on  record,  it  is  fair  to  assume  (from  what 
we  know  of  the  French  workman's  keenness)  that  the 
Trade  Union  membership  is  roughly  comparable  with 
the  total  poll  ;  of  the  advanced  groups,  out  of  a  total 
of  2,300,000  votes  cast  for  extreme  candidates,  the 
Trade  Union  vote  was  probably  not  less  than  800,000, 
so  that  it  can  claim  about  a  third  of  the  Socialist  seats. 
This  is,  of  course,  a  smaller  proportion  than  in  Great 
Britain  if  we  consider  the  total  of  Labour,  Trade 
Union  and  Liberal-Labour  votes. 

The  influence  of  French  Unions  is  due  mainly  to  the 
creation  of  Labour  Exchanges  in  all  the  principal 
towns ;  they  number  in  France  about  1 50  and  have 
a  membership  of  450,000  or  half  the  total  Trade 
Unionists.  The  Exchange  does  not  serve  only  as  a 
Labour  Bureau,  but  is  the  Socialistic  centre  of  the 
town,  where  meetings  can  be  held,  labour  questions 
discussed  and  policy  resolved  upon.  In  these  150 
French  towns  the  extreme  spirit  is  therefore  fostered 
by  the  associating  of  members  and  the  encouraging  of 
their  solidarity  ;  the  existence  of  Labour  Exchanges  is 
legalised  and  their  gradual  expansion  over  the  whole 
of  the  country  is  only  a  matter  of  time,  during  which 
the  movement  may  grow  at  an  increased  rate. 

188 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

The  original  aims  of  Trade  Unionism  are,  however, 
not  entirely  forgotten  ;  a  revival  has  been  attempted 
under  the  leadership  of  M.  Bietry,  whose  party  seeks  to 
restore  to  Trade  Unionism  its  old  standing  of  work- 
men's defence  league.  These  are  the  "  Yellow  "  Unions 
mentioned  above,  and  their  object  is  to  confine  themselves 
to  those  operations  which  are  within  their  province  as 
Unions  and,  avowedly,  to  oppose  the  spread  of  Socialistic 
doctrines.  These  Unions  put  forward  the  theory  that 
Capital  and  Labour  are  not  antagonistic  and  that 
their  fortunes  are  indissolubly  bound  up  with  one 
another.  The  "  Yellow "  Unions,  it  may  at  once  be 
said,  have  no  raison  d'etre  if  such  be  their  theories ; 
they  might  as  well  leave  the  task  of  social  reform  to  the 
Republicans  and  the  Radicals,  to  whose  programme 
they  apparently  adhere.  This  is,  however,  incorrect, 
as  these  Unions  are  founded  not  only  for  the  purpose  of 
benefiting  the  workers  but  have  set  themselves  the  far 
more  difficult  task  of  combating  the  Socialist  tendencies 
of  the  day  ;  Republicans  and  Radicals  aim  at  the  same 
goal,  but  the  fact  that  they  belong  to  the  bourgeois 
party  militates  against  them,  and  the  "  Yellow  "  Unions 
consider  themselves  in  a  far  better  position  to  secure 
the  adhesion  of  the  workers. 

Thus,  the  "  Yellows  "  can  be  looked  upon  as  a  work- 
ing-class branch  of  the  Radical  party,  with  which  they 
are  usually  ready  to  co-operate ;  they  seek  to  reform 
conditions  of  labour,  to  secure  good  wages  and  short 
hours,  old  age  pensions,  workmen's  compensation,  pro- 
tection against  industrial  diseases,  etc.,  all  the  measures 
that  the  Socialists  put  forward,  but  they  do  not  aim  at 
altering  the  social  system.  Thus  the  "  Yellows "  are 
opposed  to  State  or  municipal  trading,  to  monopolies, 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

to  land  nationalisation,  etc.  An  accurate  idea  of  their 
action  will  be  gathered  from  the  following  official  pro- 
gramme published  at  Bourg  in  1907. 

The  objects  of  the  "  Federation  des  '  Jaunes '  de 
France  "  are : — 

1.  To  obtain  those  improvements  which  may  be 
necessary  for  the  physical,  intellectual  and  moral 
development  of  the  working  class. 

2.  To  give  labour  access  to  capital  and  property. 

3.  To  oppose  all  strikes  not  provoked  by  the  uncom- 
promising attitude  of  masters  or  not  professional  in 
tendency. 

4.  To  fix  the  hours  of  labour  by  agreement  between 
masters  and  men. 

5.  To  oppose  municipal  and  State  collectivism  which 
places  the  worker  under  an  impersonal,  irresponsible 
and  harsh  master. 

6.  To  develop  among  the  workers  such  powerful 
means  of  prosperity  and  independence  as  co-operative 
associations  and  self-secured  old  age  pensions. 

7.  To  encourage  private  initiative  when  benevolently 
inclined. 

8.  To  educate  all  workers  both  generally  and  profes- 
sionally so  as  to  make  them  fit  for  all  the  needs,  rights 
and  liberties  of  a  great  people. 

9.  To  defend  the  rights  of  property,  of  combination, 
freedom  of  teaching  and  belief. 

10.  To  enable  syndicated  bodies  to  own  property. 
Such    is    the   "Yellow"   programme    and,    like    all 

programmes,  it  is  a  fascinating  document.  In  practice 
we  may  reduce  it  to  the  doctrine  propounded  by  British 
Liberal-Labour  members,  viz.  the  protection  of  Labour 
without    declaration    of    war    against    Capital.       The 

190 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

"  Yellow  "  party  is  controlled  by  a  committee  of  singu- 
larly varied  composition,  under  the  leadership  of 
M.  Pierre  Bietry,  a  watchmaker  ;  out  of  thirty  members 
thirteen  are  workmen  and  five  masters ;  the  remaining 
twelve  seats  include  such  distinguished  men  as  Admiral 
de  la  Jaille  (Senator),  General  Jeannerod,  M.  Paul 
Leroy-Beaulieu,  the  well-known  economist,  Count  de 
Vogiie,  etc. 

The  movement  has  not,  as  yet,  developed  very  far ; 
complete  figures  are  not  published,  as  the  organisation 
is  not  anxious  to  parade  its  weakness.  The  "  Yellows  " 
have  still  to  win  their  spurs,  and  they  will  not  find  the 
task  very  easy,  as  their  party  does  not  make  the  direct 
appeal  to  the  Collectivist  or  to  the  individualist  that  the 
Republican  and  the  Socialist  parties  can  make  to  the 
electorate.  Middle  courses  are  never  very  popular 
among  the  people,  who  invariably  prefer  clear  issues  ;  it 
is  therefore  not  astonishing  that  in  1906  the  "Yellow" 
candidates  aggregated  only  10,990  votes  out  of  a  poll  of 
over  eight  millions.  It  must  be  remembered  that  they 
put  forward  only  two  candidates,  so  that  this  figure  can- 
not be  looked  upon  as  conclusive ;  its  value  lies  in  the 
fact  that  the  movement  is  still  in  its  infancy  and  that 
only  one  Deputy,  M.  Bietry,  defends  its  interests  in 
Parliament.  As  regards  total  membership,  M.  Bietry 
claims  20,000  adherents  in  Lorraine  alone,  but  it  is 
unlikely  that  their  total  can  exceed  40,000  members. 
As  far  as  can  be  seen  the  party  cannot  hope  to  increase 
very  much,  unless  it  loses  its  characteristics.  At  the 
present  time  masters  look  upon  it  with  benevolence  and 
are  willing  to  assist  it  financially,  but  they  control  it 
absolutely  and  have  only  entered  into  relations  with  it 
for  the  purpose  of  controlling  it.     Thus  all  may  be  well 

191 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

as  long  as  the  workers  do  not  attempt  to  escape  the 
masters'  authority,  but  as  long  as  this  state  of  things 
exists  "  Yellow  "  Unions  will  not  gain  much  ascendancy 
over  Trade  Unionists  in  general.  Should  the  masses  at 
any  time  endeavour  to  take  their  own  line,  one  of  two 
results  must  follow :  either  the  masters  will  cut  off 
supplies  and  the  Unions  will  die  out,  or  the  workers  will 
carry  on  the  Unions  themselves  but  will  become  hostile 
to  masters  and  undistinguishable  from  Unions  of  the 
ordinary  type. 

It  is  unlikely  that  they  will  steer  a  middle  course,  for 
"  Yellow  "  members  are  not  encouraged  to  manage  their 
own  affairs  as  the  masters  deem  themselves  the  fitter 
administrators  ;  when  the  inevitable  parting  of  the  ways 
comes,  the  "  Yellow  "  Unions  will  probably  evolve  and 
join  the  Socialist  group,  just  as  British  Unions  slowly 
abandon  their  old  aims  and  gravitate  towards  the 
Labour  Party.  The  movement  is  interesting  but  it 
need  not  be  taken  seriously;  like  all  middle  parties 
it  must  slowly  be  ground  between  the  upper  and  nether 
millstones  of  extremism  and  disappear  by  degrees. 

To  conclude  this  short  survey  of  Trade  Unionism 
in  France,  it  need  only  be  emphasised  again  that  the 
movement  is  purely  Socialistic  and  that  its  direction 
is  not  likely  to  change.  Men  naturally  grow  more 
extreme  in  views,  either  because  they  go  further  than 
the  parent  stock  or  because  they  react  violently  against 
its  tenets  ;  a  disgusted  Tory  makes  the  best  Radical 
and  vice  versa,  and  such  must  be  the  case  with  French 
Trade  Unions.  In  course  of  time  the  split  must  come, 
when  those  members  whose  bent  is  not  communistic  will 
adhere  to  the  Republican  party,  whilst  the  others  will 
join  purely  Socialistic  organisations.     Then  the  great 

192 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

struggle  between  the  individual  and  the  community  will 
be  fought  to  a  finish,  and  such  tame  weapons  as  Acts 
of  Parliament  will  have  to  give  way  before  the  sterner 
arbitrament  of  the  sword. 

I  do  not  wish  to  make  prophecies  that  no  man  now 
living  is  likely  to  verify,  but  before  dismissing  the 
question  of  Socialism  and  of  systems  leading  up  to  it, 
it  is  necessary  shortly  to  consider  a  kindred  subject, 
viz.  Co-operation.  This  is  a  mild  form  of  Socialism, 
an  application  to  individual  enterprise  of  the  gigantic 
municipalism  towards  which  modern  Socialism  tends. 
The  co-operator  is  not  necessarily  a  Socialist;  indeed, 
he  may  know  nothing  of  Socialism  and  yet  be  a  valuable 
member  of  his  society.  But,  as  we  have  said  before, 
there  are  many  unwitting  Socialists;  those  who  patronise 
municipal  tramways,  post  a  letter  in  government  post 
offices,  or  buy  tobacco  from  the  French  State  are  un- 
conscious of  the  fact  that  they  are  supporting  Socialism, 
so  it  is  not  extraordinary  that  the  more  insidious  form 
of  Co-operation  does  not  attract  their  attention.  The 
movement  tends  towards  the  creation  of  a  state  within 
the  State,  capable  of  controlling  it  by  capturing  its 
supplies  and  of  eventually  modifying  its  political  form. 
Setting  aside,  however,  the  possibilities  of  Co-operation, 
it  is  easy  to  reconcile  it  with  Socialism,  because  its 
tendency  is  to  destroy  private  enterprise  and  to  replace 
it  by  quasi-public  action ;  if  Co-operation  captures 
industry  as  it  is  slowly  capturing  trade,  capital  will 
as  assuredly  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  community 
as  it  would  if  all  wealth-producing  businesses  were 
nationalised.  We  may  here  recall  the  fact  that  Co- 
operative Societies  have  as  an  object  the  destruction 
of  all  middlemen  ;  they  contribute  their  own  capital, 
o  193 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

sell  exclusively  to  their  members  and,  after  paying  a 
limited  rate  of  interest  on  their  capital,  return  the 
surplus,  in  cash  or  shares,  to  those  with  whom  they 
have  dealt  pro  rata  to  their  expenditure.  Thus  profit- 
earning  becomes  a  secondary  consideration  ;  goods  are 
sold  at  as  low  a  rate  as  possible,  and  the  profits  which, 
in  the  ordinary  course,  would  go  to  merchants,  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  consumer.  The  most  advanced  system 
of  Socialism  goes  but  little  further  and,  indeed,  aims  at  the 
very  same  object,  viz.  the  securing  of  all  profits  for  the 
worker.  Co-operation  and  Socialism  differ  as  regards 
even  the  limited  interest  on  capital  and  the  division  of 
profits,  but  both  ideas  spring  from  the  same  source  or 
at  least  travel  on  parallel  roads. 

This  digression  should  explain  why  Co-operation  has 
been  included  with  Trade  Unionism  in  a  chapter  which 
proposes  to  deal  with  "  semi-Socialism "  in  France. 
Like  Trade  Unionism,  Co-operation  has  not  developed 
very  much  in  that  country  and  for  the  self-same  reasons; 
again  the  natural  difficulty  of  grouping  Frenchmen  for 
a  common  object  comes  to  the  fore.  All  the  reasons 
and  explanations  given  in  the  early  part  of  this  chapter 
apply  in  this  instance,  including  the  effects  of  national 
well-being.  The  Frenchman  is  too  good  a  revolutionary 
to  make  a  good  co-operator ;  the  system  gives  no  scope 
for  heroics,  and  the  suggestion  of  solidarity  strikes  a 
Frenchman  as  effacement ;  moreover,  the  enterprising 
Frenchman  usually  prefers  to  start  a  small  shop  when 
he  wishes  to  emerge  from  the  working  class.  He  is 
not  content  to  remain  a  member  of  it  and  to  try  to 
improve  his  condition  ;  he  wishes  to  rise  in  the  world, 
and  refuses  to  the  Co-operative  Society  the  brain  power 
that  is  essential  to  its  running. 

194 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

Moreover,  though  Co-operation  can  fight  its  own 
battles  and  has  won  many  victories  in  all  parts  of 
Europe,  when  the  people  are  indifferent  it  stands  in 
need  of  support  from  the  men  of  the  day.  In  Great 
Britain  it  has  succeeded  without  their  help  through  the 
response  of  the  masses,  but  in  France,  where  the  masses 
were  not  stirred,  strong  leadership  was  essential ;  in  the 
early  days,  some  ten  years  ago,  political  men  of  all 
parties  were  inclined  to  favour  Co-operative  Societies  and 
were  willing  to  sit  on  their  councils  and  to  address 
meetings  on  their  behalf  The  shop-keeping  class,  how- 
ever, very  soon  realised  the  danger  with  which  the 
movement  was  fraught  for  them  and  made  Deputies 
clearly  understand  that  they  must  choose  between  the 
co-operative  movement  and  their  support.  Placed  in  an 
untenable  position,  for  the  working  class  continued  to 
stand  aloof,  most  of  the  leaders  abandoned  the  move- 
ment which  has  struggled  on  unassisted.  For  all  these 
reasons  Co-operation  has  not  developed  in  France ;  it 
had  a  brief  moment  of  renown  and  since  then  has 
grown  slowly,  but  it  holds  forth  no  promise  of  equal- 
ling in  importance  the  British  movement.  The  figures 
that  are  quoted  further  on,  considered  in  themselves,  are 
well  worthy  of  our  attention,  for  nothing  tells  us  that 
the  popular  attitude  will  not  alter,  but  if  we  compare 
them  with  those  recorded  for  Great  Britain,  they  shrink 
into  insignificance.  Whereas  in  this  country  we  are 
witnessing  the  effects  of  Co-operation  and  of  Trade 
Unionism,  which  amount  practically  to  an  economic 
revolution,  in  France  the  same  result  can  only  be  at- 
tained by  political  means. 

At  the  present  time,  commercial  Co-operation  is  repre- 
sented in  France  by  the   Union  Co-operative,  the  pro- 

195 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

gress  of  which  has  been  fairly  rapid  ;  in  1890  its  mem- 
bership consisted  of  59  societies,  the  number  of  which 
rose  to  190  in  1895  and  to  307  in  1900;  at  the  present 
time  about  350  societies  have  joined  the  Union  and 
represent  a  membership  of  about  500,000  persons. 
This  looks  like  an  imposing  figure,  but  it  should  not  be 
forgotten  that  Mr.  Gray,  the  President  of  the  last  Co- 
operative Congress  in  Great  Britain,  estimated  the 
numbers  affected  in  this  country  at  9,000,000  out  of  a 
total  population  that  does  not  greatly  exceed  that  of 
France.  The  Union  Co-operative  controls  a  wholesale 
society  serving  as  a  link  between  manufacturers  and 
Co-operative  Societies ;  its  turnover  has  not  yet  reached 
;^40,ooo  per  annum,  an  insignificant  amount  when  com- 
pared with  ^29,650,000,  the  annual  volume  of  trade 
carried  on  by  the  English  and  Scotch  wholesale  societies. 
However,  as  the  French  wholesale  society  was  founded 
only  in  1900  and  has  been  steadily  increasing  in  import- 
ance, it  is  likely  that  the  future  will  see  some  consider- 
able expansion  in  this  direction  ;  at  the  present  time 
France  stands  low  on  the  list  which  is  headed  by 
Great  Britain.  The  following  table  is  interesting,  as  it 
shows  the  turnover  of  wholesale  societies  in  various 
countries ;  the  date  between  parentheses  is  that  of  their 
formation. 


England  and  Scotland  (1864  and  1868) 

Germany  (1894) 

Denmark  (1884) 

Switzerland  (1892) 

Hungary  (1888)       . 

Holland  (1889) 

Belgium  (1900) 

France  (1900) 

196 


^^29,650,000 

;^2, 000,000 
^1,400,000 

;^36o,ooo 

;^320,000 

;^I  20,000 

;^8o,ooo 

^40,000 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

It  must  be  understood  that  the  above  figures  refer  in 
each  case  to  the  wholesale  society  founded  by  the 
national  federation  ;  where  two  or  more  independent 
Co-operative  Societies  have  united  for  purchasing  pur- 
poses their  turnover  is  not  included  ;  in  France,  over 
and  above  the  official  wholesale  society,  there  are  about 
twenty  smaller  ones,  but  the  total  value  of  their  trade 
(including  the  official  society)  does  not  even  then  exceed 
;^400,ooo  per  annum. 

Productive  or  manufacturing  Co-operation  has  been 
attempted  in  France  on  a  fairly  large  scale,  the  most 
notable  instance  being  the  Carmaux  glassworkers  and 
the  Guise  coppersmiths  ;  neither  group  has  been  par- 
ticularly successful.  The  difficulties  with  which  com- 
mercial Co-operation  has  to  contend  are  as  nothing 
compared  with  those  that  confront  industrial  action, 
where  a  market  is  not  available  for  the  product  and 
where  capital  is  always  insufficient.  At  the  present 
time  the  turnover  of  these  societies,  which  have  been 
federated  since  1884,  does  not  exceed  ;^2,ooo,ooo  per 
annum,  a  small  total  when  compared  with  the  ;i^9,ooo,ooo 
aggregated  by  manufacturing  societies  in  Great  Britain. 

Co-operation  in  building  should  also  be  mentioned. 
It  is  an  important  movement  in  Great  Britain ;  in 
France,  however,  at  the  present  time,  there  are  not  one 
hundred  societies  founded  for  this  purpose  and  they  do 
not  house  much  more  than  eight  thousand  persons,  as 
opposed  to  over  three  times  as  many  societies  in  Great 
Britain  accommodating  175,000  tenants. 

The  preceding  figures  may  be  summed  up  roughly  as 
follows.  It  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  exact  totals,  for 
even  the  official  publications  of  the  Union  acknowledge 
that  half  the  societies  do  not  supply  returns  ;  thus  the 

197 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Union  is  compelled  to  make  estimates  and  it  becomes 
necessary  to  discount  the  slightly  sanguine  results  it 
arrives  at.  At  the  present  time  there  are  in  France 
over  2000  Co-operative  Societies,  looo  of  which  are 
grocery  stores,  mostly  very  small,  for  the  total  mem- 
bership does  not  exceed  500,000  families  or  2,000,000^ 
persons.  Their  total  business  does  not  exceed 
;^  1 0,000,000,  as  compared  with  ;^66, 500,000  for  trad- 
ing societies  alone  in  Great  Britain  ;  it  grows  by  about 
5 1  per  cent  per  annum.  Strenuous  efforts  are  being 
made  by  the  Union  Co-operative  and  the  Ligue  Nationale 
to  educate  the  people  and  to  demonstrate  to  them  the 
advantages  of  the  system  ;  though  I  have  thought  it 
necessary  to  give  the  foregoing  details,  experience  of 
the  French  character  induces  me  to  think  that  they  will 
not  succeed  in  interesting  the  French  public.  Comfort 
and  individualism  are  sturdy  foes  of  Co-operation  ; 
whilst  British  and  Dutch  poverty,~German  and  Swiss 
sociability  have  succeeded,  French  prosperity  and  French 
independence  must  always  stand  in  the  way  of  co-oper- 
ative development  and  confine  its  action  to  local  and 
insignificant  ventures. 

Thus,  both  as  regards  Trade  Unionism  and  Co- 
operation, we  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  :  apart  from 
political  influence  their  hold  on  the  French  people  is 
not  very  strong;  their  development  is  limited  and  their 
action  will  be  truly  felt  only  in  the  measures  promoted 
by  the  Socialist  party.  In  Great  Britain  Trade  Union- 
ism and  Co-operation  are  favouring  the  spread  of 
Socialism ;  in  France  they  follow  it  respectfully  and 
will  at  best  assist  its  triumphal  progress.  Their  fate  is 
absorption,  as  is  ever  the  case  with  half-measures  ;  in  a 
^  As  opposed  to  nine  to  ten  millions  in  Great  Britain, 


Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation 

word  their  position  with  regard  to  dominant  Socialism 
is  that  attributed  to  Portugal  after  the  Methuen  treaty 
— a  pinnace  attached  to  the  stern  of  the  powerful 
British  frigate ;  for  them  there  is  no  emancipation  and 
no  hope,  except  the  success  of  the  system  of  which 
they  are  an  embodiment. 


199 


CHAPTER   X 
TRADE    AND   COLONIES 

COMMERCIAL  and  colonial  questions  need  not  be 
developed  at  length  in  a  work  dealing  mainly 
with  the  political  and  social  aspects  of  the  French 
State,  but  certain  salient  facts  must  be  brought  forward 
and  their  origin  sought  for  in  national  conditions.  Any 
geographical  treatise  will  give  more  valuable  details 
than  can  be  compressed  into  this  short  chapter,  but 
it  is  not  so  much  my  object  to  be  statistically  informa- 
tive as  to  show  the  state  of  things  in  relation  with  the 
factors  that  have  brought  it  about.  Thus  an  exhaustive 
analysis  of  French  trade,  of  the  wares  that  it  deals 
with  and  of  the  markets  that  it  reaches  cannot  be 
attempted,  nor  is  this  necessary  as  the  Direction  Ghi^rale 
des  Douanes  issues  very  clear  annual  statements.  The 
perusal  of  these  statistics  is,  however,  likely  to  impress 
the  reader  erroneously,  not  because  they  are  inaccurate, 
but  because  the  obvious  comparison  with  Great  Britain 
and  other  countries  would  tend  to  place  France  on  an 
undeservedly  low  footing.  It  is  true  that  the  total 
import  and  export  trade  of  France  falls  short  of  the 
totals  aggregated  by  Great  Britain,  Germany  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  but  this  figure  is  not  an 
absolute  criterion  of  prosperity,  even  when  corrected 
by  the  addition  of  the  estimated  internal  trade ;  as  it 

200 


Trade  and  Colonies 

is  only  a  partial  statement  of  facts  it  is,  therefore,  en- 
tirely misleading.  The  nature  of  French  trade  is 
essentially  different  from  that  of  the  three  nations 
mentioned  above  ;  agricultural  races,  unless  they  pro- 
duce far  more  foodstuffs  than  they  can  consume,  do  not 
as  a  rule  figure  very  largely  in  the  balance  sheet  of  the 
world.  If  we  say  that  they  are  "  agricultural  "  it  should 
be  understood  that  countries  such  as  the  United  States 
of  America  would  have  to  be  put  down  as  non-indus- 
trial ;  if  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  population,  say 
half  or  more,  is  employed  on  the  land,  the  State  can  be 
dubbed  "  agricultural."  This  is  hardly  the  case  in  the 
United  States  or  Germany,  and  it  is  certainly  not  so  in 
Great  Britain.  On  the  other  hand,  such  countries  as 
France,  Russia  or  Hungary  are  emphatically  agri- 
cultural, and  it  is  noticeable  that  they  do  not  figure  in 
the  trade  returns  of  the  world  to  an  extent  commensu- 
rate with  their  population  or  their  area. 

Taking  France  as  a  type,  as  about  half  her  population 
earns  a  living  from  the  soil,  we  find  this  law  of  choice 
between  the  land  on  the  one  hand  and  industry  and 
commerce  on  the  other  very  clearly  illustrated.  When 
the  soil  is  rich  and  the  land  laws  intelligent,  the  popula- 
tion naturally  turns  towards  agriculture  as  a  means  of 
existence  and  not  towards  the  painful  toil  of  industry;  as 
great  commercial  success,  apart  from  the  possession  of 
quasi-monopolies  such  as  Spanish  mercury  or  Russian 
malachite,  only  proceeds  from  intense  competition,  when 
as  much  as  half  the  population  is  employed  on  the 
land,  the  other  half  finds  no  great  difficulty  in  existing 
and  does  not  strive  to  increase  the  turnover.  It  is  only 
countries  the  soil  of  which  is  poor  or  which  are  over- 
populated,  such  as    Belgium,  Great    Britain,  Holland, 

20 1 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Germany,  Switzerland,  etc.,  that  contribute  imposing 
totals  to  the  trade  of  the  world.  As  France  is  both 
rich  in  land  and  not  over-populated,  her  people  have 
clung  to  agriculture  and,  though  a  small  rural  exodus  is 
taking  place,  it  is  still  her  staple  industry. 

This  being  the  case,  the  commerce  of  France  is  con- 
fronted with  an  enormous  section  of  the  population 
whose  needs  are  practically  confined  to  national  pro- 
ducts ;  the  home  market  is  secured  for  the  home  manu- 
facturer (at  what  cost  to  the  consumer  will  be  shown 
further  on),  and  he  finds  his  activities  fully  employed  in 
satisfying  its  requirements.  Thus  we  must  note  that,  to 
the  volume  of  oversea  trade,  an  enormous  home  trade 
must  be  added  ;  it  is  impossible  to  estimate  it,  but  its 
magnitude  will  be  realised  when  we  find  labour  no 
better  paid  than  in  Great  Britain  and  yet  manufactured 
articles  saleable  at  anything  up  to  double  British  prices. 
The  commerce  of  France  is  rather  internal  than  ex- 
ternal, the  country  being  spared  the  predicament  of 
Stevenson's  islanders  by  its  agricultural  production. 
In  1906^  raw  materials  to  the  value  of  over  ;^i  33,000,000 
were  imported  ;  to  this  figure  we  must  add  an  enormous 
and  unknown  quantity  for  national  raw  material  and  a 
still  larger  figure  for  labour  and  working  expenses ;  we 
arrive  thus  at  a  total  value  of  many  hundreds  of 
millions,  which  is  the  value  of  French  manufactured 
goods.  Yet,  we  find  that  in  1906  these  goods  were  only 
exported  to  the  extent  of  just  over  ;^ 1 00,000,000,  the 
considerable  difference  representing  the  amount  sold  to 
the  French  people  (stocks  being  taken  as  permanent) ; 
the  wildest  estimates  of  this  amount  are  made  every 
day   and   can   never  be   checked,  yet   it  is  not  likely 

^  At  the  time  of  writing  this  figure  is  not  available  for  1907. 
202 


Trade  and  Colonies 

that  the  total  inland  and  oversea  trade  of  France  per 
head  can  compare  very  favourably  with  that  of  any 
other  nation. 

Bulk  figures  of  trade  are  not  precise  indications,  even 
when  corrected  by  the  addition  of  inland  trade  ;  that  is 
agreed,  but  yet  they  are  interesting,  particularly  when 
compared  with  previous  years.  As  a  general  rule,  though 
increased  trade  may  not  spell  increased  prosperity, 
large  and  growing  trade  figures  are  healthy  indications  ; 
a  big  turnover  does  not  mean  big  profits,  but  it  means 
at  least  that  more  has  been  spent  in  production,  which 
certainly  makes  for  the  prosperity  of  the  people.  In 
1906  the  total  oversea  trade  of  France  was  ^^"4 3 5,000,000, 
a  small  figure  when  compared  with  the  famous  British 
"  thousand  millions  "  record,  but,  as  aforesaid,  it  is  likely 
that  the  balance  is  partly  redressed  by  home  trade. 
Given  that  the  French  agricultural  population  is  about 
forty-eight  per  cent,  as  against  ten  per  cent  in  England 
and  Wales,  it  will  be  realised  how  great  is  the  scope  for 
this  part  of  trade. 

Before  considering  the  important  questions  relating 
to  fluctuations  in  French  trade  during  the  last  ten  years, 
a  few  words  as  to  markets  and  goods  dealt  with  will 
give  a  correct  idea  of  its  nature.  As  regards  imports, 
in  1906,  well  over  sixty  per  cent  were  made  up  by  raw 
materials,  a  very  encouraging  indication,  for  this  figure 
did  not  include  foodstuffs,  so  that  French  industry  must 
necessarily  have  been  in  a  healthy  condition  or  it  never 
could  have  absorbed  raw  material  to  the  extent  of 
;^  1 3 3,000,000 ;  the  remainder  was  made  up  by  manu- 
factured goods  and  foodstuffs.  It  should  be  noted  that 
the  former  did  not  aggregate  more  than  ;6^37,500,O0O,  or 
less  than  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  total  imports  ;  the 

203 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

tariff  wall  is  most  effective  and  keeps  out  practically  all 
foreign  goods  that  can  be  manufactured  in  France,  this 
of  course  at  a  price  paid  by  the  consumer.  Exports 
are  made  up  nearly  exactly  to  the  extent  of  fifty  per 
cent  by  manufactured  goods,  a  figure  which  compares 
very  well  with  the  eighteen  per  cent  imported.  I  do 
not  propose  to  revive  the  theory  of  the  Balance  of 
Trade,  though  it  has  been  exhumed  many  times  since 
May  1903,  but  it  is  quite  clear  that,  when  all  allowances 
for  freight  and  customs  have  been  made,  imports  of 
eighteen  per  cent  compare  very  well  with  exports  of 
fifty  per  cent,  for  the  total  exports  practically  equal  the 
total  imports,  while  manufactured  goods  exported  con- 
siderably exceed  manufactured  goods  imported.  It 
must  of  course  be  understood  that  this  is  only  a  rough 
indication;  a  "favourable"  Balance  of  Trade  is  only 
"  favourable  "  if  there  is  a  balance  of  profits,  not  only  of 
turnover,  a  fact  often  lost  sight  of  by  the  Protectionist 
party. 

At  the  present  time,  French  trade  is  flourishing  and 
has  practically  recovered  from  the  serious  blow  that 
was  dealt  it  in  1892,  as  will  be  shown  further  on.  In- 
dustry has  successfully  overcome  national  poverty  in 
iron  and  coal,  and  its  prosperity  is  testified  to,  not  so 
much  by  the  fact  that  manufactured  goods  figure  in 
exports  to  the  extent  of  fifty  per  cent,  as  by  the  annual 
increase  of  this  percentage.  Taking  the  total  figure  of 
exports  and  imports  in  1906  at  ;^4 3 5 ,000,000,  we  find 
that  Great  Britain  easily  heads  the  list  of  customers 
both  for  imports  and  exports  ;  that  is  a  normal  result, 
the  two  countries  being  neighbours,  but  it  is  also  ex- 
plained by  the  poor  agricultural  development  of  Great 
Britain ;  the  total  trade  of  the  two  countries  amounts 

204 


Trade  and  Colonies 

to  some  ;^8o,ooo,ooo  or  close  on  twenty  per  cent  of  the 
total  French  trade.  This  has  been  the  case  practically 
since  Waterloo,  though  the  period  of  very  close  re- 
lations was  only  begun  under  Napoleon  III  ;  we  must 
remember  that,  in  the  fifties,  neither  Germany  nor 
Italy  was  in  existence  and  that  Great  Britain  benefited 
from  this  state  of  things  almost  as  much  as  from  her 
position  as  a  neighbour.  Be  that  as  it  may,  twenty 
per  cent  of  the  oversea  trade  of  France  is  accounted 
for  by  Great  Britain,  and  it  is  somewhat  surprising  that 
this  should  not  have  resulted  long  ago  in  a  good  under- 
standing such  as  is  now  enjoyed  by  the  two  countries. 
Immediately  next  to  Great  Britain,  and  in  virtue  of 
their  neighbourhood,  rank  Germany,  with  ;^46,ooo,ooo, 
and  Belgium,  with  ;^44,ooo,ooo,  the  next  most  important 
business  connection  being  the  United  States  with 
;^36,ooo,ooo.  As  regards  colonial  trade,  the  Direction 
Ginirale  des  Douanes  unconsciously  testifies  to  its  in- 
significance; it  gives  the  figures  of  exports  and  im- 
ports to  and  from  Algeria,  the  total  of  which  is 
;^24,ooo,ooo,  but  as  regards  other  colonies,  it  does  not 
consider  their  totals  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
mentioned  and  merges  them  into  "  sundries,"  after 
having  given  such  a  small  figure  as  a  little  over 
;£"4,ooo,ooo  for  Austria-Hungary.  This  question  will 
be  dealt  with  in  the  second  part  of  this  chapter,  but 
the  fact  is  sufficiently  noteworthy  to  bear  repetition. 

These  preliminary  matters  being  disposed  of,  it  is 
essential  that  we  should  obtain  an  idea  of  the  fluctua- 
tions of  French  trade,  say  for  the  last  ten  years,  as 
nothing  is  more  delusive  than  the  returns  for  a  single 
year ;  moreover,  as  Great  Britain  is  still  in  the  throes 
of  a  fiscal  controversy,  valuable  lessons  may  be  deduced 

205 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

from  the  French  experiment  conducted  by  M.  M^Hne 
in  1892.  The  following  table,  the  figures  of  which  are 
extracted  from  the  Documents  Statistiques  sur  le  Com- 
merce de  la  France,  were  published  by  the  French 
Customs  House  in  1906.  Gold  and  silver  bullion  are 
excluded  by  these  statistics  and,  as  these  metals  do 
not  affect  the  discussion,  because  their  movements  are 
solely  connected  with  minting  and  not  with  exchange, 
they  are  not  included  in  the  table.  The  amounts  are 
rounded  off  to  millions  sterling. 


Year. 
1897 

Imports. 

158,000,000  . 

Exports. 

£ 
144,000,000 

Totals. 

£ 
..   302,000,000 

1898 

179,000,000 

140,000,000 

,,   319,000,000 

1899 

181,000,000 

.  166,000,000 

..   347,000,000 

1900 

188,000,000 

164,000,000 

352,000,000 

1 90 1 

175,000,000  . 

160,000,000 

..   335,000,000 

1902 

176,000,000 

170,000,000 

346,000,000 

1903 

192,000,000 

170,000,000 

..   362,000,000 

1904 

180,000,000 

178,000,000 

..   358,000,000 

1905 

191,000,000 

.  195,000,000 

386,000,000 

1906 

225,000,000 

.  210,000,000 

..  435)00o>ooo 

1907  (est 

d.)  242,000,000  . 

222,000,000 

464,000,000 

The  first  point  that  attracts  our  attention  is  that, 
during  the  last  ten  years,  imports  have  in  every  case 
but  one  exceeded  exports,  though  this  difference  was 
very  large  in  1898  only,  a  year  of  commercial  warfare 
which  we  shall  meet  again.  It  may  be  necessary  to 
repeat  that  any  comparison  between  export  and  import 
figures  is  necessarily  sterile,  not  only  because  imported 
goods  are  rated  at  the  frontier  and  are  eventually  sold 
at  a  price  enhanced  not  only  by  railway  freights  but 
by  interests,  charges  and  profits,  but  because  exported 

206 


Trade  and  Colonies 

goods  are  not  usually  declared  at  the  price  they  will 
fetch  in  the  country  of  destination,  for  it  is  often  un- 
ascertainable.  A  cask  of  wine  shipped  at  Bordeaux 
for  Germany  will  be  entered  at,  say,  300  francs,  its 
value,  on  the  French  register ;  the  shipper  would  not 
add  the  freight,  charges  and  insurance  or  he  would  be 
compelled  by  the  German  customs  to  pay  on  the  total 
value.  But  once  the  cask  has  entered  Germany,  if  it 
has  to  be  forwarded  by  rail,  by  the  time  it  has  reached 
its  destination  and  all  the  middlemen  have  added  their 
profits  to  that  of  the  original  seller,  the  price  of  the 
cask  may  have  reached  400  francs,  which  will  still 
remain  entered  on  the  French  books  at  300.  So  much 
for  the  value  of  the  export  figures  on  which  Protection- 
ists lay  so  much  stress  ! 

Increasing  imports  and  increasing  exports  are  the 
true  criterion,  especially  when  the  former  are  mainly 
made  up  of  raw  materials  and  the  latter  of  manufactured 
articles.  The  fluctuations  of  population,  too  often 
neglected  in  the  British  controversy,  need  not  be  taken 
into  consideration  in  the  French  State,  blessed  as  it  is 
with  a  practically  unvarying  population.  As  has  already 
been  mentioned,  at  the  present  time  these  gratifying 
signs  are  shown  in  the  import  and  export  figures  of 
France,  so  that  we  are  enabled  to  consider  the  total 
trade  as  a  true  indication  of  the  commercial  state 
of  things,  because  its  components  are  of  a  satisfactory 
nature. 

A  comparison  of  the  totals  from  1897  to  1906  shows 
a  distinct  improvement ;  the  first  and  last  figures  of 
the  decade  show  an  increase  in  total  trade  of  over 
thirty-three  per  cent,  without  any  great  fluctuations 
and  signalised  principally  by  the  considerable  increase  in 

207 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

1905  and  1906.^  But,  great  as  this  figure  of  ;^43 5,000,000 
may  be,  it  is  hardly  a  record  ;  true,  it  is  the  largest  total 
ever  noted  for  French  trade,  but  if  we  consider  that  the 
commerce  of  the  Republic  attained  practically  equal 
totals  before  1892,  we  realise  at  once  that  a  terrible 
crisis  has  had  its  place  in  the  history  of  the  last  twenty 
years  of  French  trade.  The  Republic  has  recovered  its 
position ;  commerce  is  flourishing,  but  a  great  and  costly 
experiment  in  Protectionism  has  been  made  and  has 
ended  in  the  most  dismal  of  failures ;  French  trade  was 
half  ruined  by  the  experiment  and  only  extricated  when 
the  system  was  practically  abandoned,  after  it  had  been 
the  cause  of  considerable  losses.  It  is  with  this  inter- 
esting attempt  that  we  must  endeavour  to  deal,  with  a 
view  to  gaining  information  applicable  to  this  country. 

Up  to  1892  France  was  practically  a  Free  Trade 
nation,  in  this  sense  that  the  general  tariff  was  tempered 
in  the  case  of  most  important  countries  by  commercial 
treaties ;  the  policy,  initiated  by  the  Government  of 
Napoleon  III,  of  friendship  with  Great  Britain  was 
established  by  a  treaty  for  twenty  years,  extending  up 
to  1882.  Germany,  having  secured  the  "  most  favoured 
nation"  clause  by  the  treaty  of  Frankfort,  which 
marked  the  close  of  the  great  war,  did  not  come  into 
consideration,  but  friendly  treaties  had  been  concluded 
with  Spain,  Switzerland  and  Italy.  Thus  France  had 
Free  Trade  with  all  her  neighbours,  in  the  sense  that 
Great  Britain  enjoys  Free  Trade  to-day,  viz.  customs 
for  revenue  purposes  only. 

The  "  Fair  Trade  "  movement  had,  however,  already 
begun  to  make  itself  felt  at  the  end  of  the  Second 

'  Results  for  1907  being  only  estimated  are  not  used  in  these  com- 
parisons, but  they  confirm  all  deductions  based  on  1906. 

208 


Trade  and  Colonies 

Empire  and  industries,  even  agriculture,  had  raised 
a  claim  for  the  preservation  of  the  home  market ; 
their  cry  had  been  unheeded  and  the  treaties  had 
been  concluded  but,  soon  after  the  war,  the  triumph 
of  the  middle  classes  brought  the  question  to  the  fore 
and  a  fierce  controversy  was  centred  towards  1875 
round  the  renewal  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain. 
Public  opinion  had,  however,  not  forgotten  the  friendly 
attitude  of  this  country  at  the  time  of  the  Franco- 
German  War,  nor  did  it  at  all  vigorously  support  the 
proposals  of  the  industrial  classes.  Politicians  were 
too  busy  considering  the  reform  of  the  Senate  (which 
came  to  a  head  in  1884)  to  give  much  attention  to  the 
matter,  but  they  were  sufficiently  impressed  by  the 
clamour  of  the  manufacturers  to  give  them  at  least  a 
sop;  it  was  decided  that  the  twenty  years'  commercial 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  should  be  renewed,  but  this 
time  for  ten  years  only  from  1882.  Thus  the  thin  end 
of  the  wedge  was  inserted  and  the  manufacturers  con- 
tinued their  efforts  with  remarkable  vigour.  The  usual 
methods  of  propaganda  were  employed  and  funds  were 
not  lacking  for  the  prosecution  of  Protectionist  aims, 
supported  as  they  were  by  the  wealthy  interested.  In 
1892,  the  Protectionist  campaign  was  crowned  with 
success ;  it  was  not  made  an  issue  at  the  elections,  for 
these,  in  France,  are  centred  rather  round  men  than 
round  measures,  but  the  Legislature,  finding  the  bulk 
of  the  people  indifferent  and  a  powerful  minority 
clamorous,  decided  not  to  renew  the  treaty. 

Thus   in    1892    and    1893,   foreign    goods    and    raw 

materials  that  had  been  admitted  at  reduced  rates  for 

as  long  as  thirty  years  in  the  case  of  Great  Britain 

suddenly  fell  under  the  sway  of  an  aggravated  general 

r  209 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

tariff  which  taxed  certain  articles  as  much  as  twenty- 
five  and  thirty  per  cent,  the  average  being  fifteen.  This 
was  far  from  being  comparable  with  a  MacKinley  or 
even  a  Dingley  Bill,  but  it  was  enough  to  exclude 
foreign  produce  on  which  the  margin  of  profit  was 
small.  At  last  the  manufacturers  had  their  home 
market  and  they  proceeded  to  exploit  it  to  their  hearts' 
content,  a  general  rise  in  prices  being  noticeable,  while 
strikes,  a  natural  result  of  this  rise,  further  impeded 
industry.  The  manufacturing  interest  would,  however, 
have  been  a  gainer  at  the  expense  of  the  public,  if  they 
had  not  been  accustomed  to  reckon  also  on  foreign 
trade ;  enhanced  prices  would  have  repaid  them  for 
smaller  turnovers  and,  sheltered  by  the  tariffs,  the  trusts 
that  they  proceeded  to  form  would  have  proved  valu- 
able assets. 

But  France  was  a  great  exporting  country  before  the 
1892  tariff,  and  industry  had  to  rely  on  foreign  trade  for 
its  handsomest  profits.  This  was  the  weak  point  in  the 
Protectionist  armour  and  it  was  speedily  found  out  by 
the  foreigner  ;  Great  Britain,  adhering  to  her  Free  Trade 
policy,  did  not  stir,  but  Italy,  Switzerland  and  Spain 
began  against  France  a  violent  tariff  war.  Not  only 
were  French  goods  placed  under  the  ordinary  righne 
but,  in  Italy,  they  were  even  differentiated  against.  In 
five  years  France  lost  nearly  a  quarter  of  her  oversea 
trade,  her  exports  being,  of  course,  the  first  to  suffer ; 
thus  internal  industrial  unrest  was  assisted  by  bad 
foreign  trade  and  a  powerful  current  of  opinion  soon 
manifested  itself.  Had  France  possessed  two  parties 
instead  of  half  a  dozen  one  of  them  would  doubtless 
have  gained  office  with  "  Free  Trade  "  as  a  programme. 
France  is  an  ideal  country  for  this  policy,  because  she  is 

2IO 


Trade  and  Colonies 

self-supporting  as  regards  foodstuffs,  but  such  was  not 
the  popular  demand.  Nothing  so  radical  was  required 
of  the  Government,  but  the  tariff  war  was  to  be  stopped. 
In  1897,  when  returns  were  at  their  lowest,  negotiations 
had  to  be  undertaken  and  within  the  next  three  years 
treaties  were  signed  with  Spain,  Italy  and  Switzerland, 
on  terms  roughly  approximating  to  those  ruling  before 
the  tariff  war.  The  general  tariff  remained  applicable 
to  other  countries,  except  Germany,  as  aforesaid,  the 
position  of  Great  Britain  not  being  affected  ;  in  ex- 
change for  her  concessions,  France  received  practically 
nothing  :  the  "  big  revolver  "  had  missed  fire. 

By  degrees  the  result  of  this  more  enlightened  policy 
made  itself  felt  and  returns  increased  slowly  and 
steadily ;  unfortunately  for  France,  the  long  tariff  war 
had  left  its  traces.  Whilst  French  goods  (particularly 
wine,  silks  and  Parisian  articles)  had  been  barred  out, 
markets  had  been  captured  by  other  countries,  notably 
by  Germany,  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 
Feeling  was  strong  against  French  policy  and  rivals  had 
no  difficulty  in  establishing  themselves  on  European 
markets ;  business  relations  being  once  created,  when 
peace  was  assured  France  found  herself  compelled  to 
make  up  leeway.  Popular  habits  and  tastes  had 
changed  and,  for  several  years,  practically  up  to  1903, 
customers  were  not  recaptured.  Whether  old  connec- 
tions were  re-established  cannot  of  course  be  ascer- 
tained ;  in  all  likelihood  increases  were  due  mainly  to 
new  business. 

The  moral  of  France's  Protectionist  experiment  can 
easily  be  pointed  ;  tariffs  produced  an  immense  shrink- 
age in  her  trade ;  their  reduction  improved  it  beyond 
all  expectation.     The  venture  was  a  costly  one  but,  if 

211 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

it  has  effectually  cured  the  country  of  Protectionism, 
the  losses  will  ultimately  be  found  salutary.  At  the 
present  time,  generally  speaking,  France  is  under  a 
regime  of  moderate  Protection  ;  none  but  a  doctrinaire 
would  object  to  tariffs  in  the  abstract,  or  conclude  that 
we  must  slavishly  adhere  to  French  conclusions,  but 
a  few  points  must  be  noted  with  regard  to  the  position 
at  the  present  time.  Customs  are  in  France  both  pro- 
tective and  revenue-earning;  in  1906  they  produced 
almost  exactly  iJ"20,ooo,ooo.  Direct  taxation  is  very 
small  in  France ;  there  is  no  income  tax  and  other 
direct  contributions  are  limited  to  under  4I  per  cent  on 
dividends  and  an  average  urban  rate  of  about  two 
shillings  in  the  pound  rental.  The  fabric  of  French 
finance  rests  on  indirect  taxation,  such  as  customs  and 
the  tobacco  monopoly,  to  which  may  be  assimilated 
local  customs  {octrois),  etc.  Controversy  has  raged 
round  the  question  of  direct  versus  indirect  taxation, 
both  of  which  have  their  advantages,  but  France  shows 
no  great  inclination  to  adopt  the  former  system,  as 
exemplified  by  income  tax. 

It  must,  however,  be  mentioned  that  indirect  taxation 
has  considerably  raised  prices  in  France.  Not  only 
have  veiled  trusts  been  constituted,  the  most  important 
being  those  concerned  with  sugar,  paper  and  petroleum, 
but  the  general  trader  has  been  able  to  obtain  high 
prices  under  the  shelter  of  the  tariff.  Clothes  cost  in 
France  at  least  fifty  per  cent  more  than  in  Great  Britain, 
books  about  double,  sugar  also  about  double,  coffee 
double,  tea  about  treble ;  meat  and  dairy  produce  are 
sold  at  about  thirty  per  cent  above  British  prices,  and  it 
is  noticeable  with  regard  to  the  latter  that  the  French 
"  dump  "  it  into  England  at  a  lower  price  than  prevails 

21% 


Trade  and  Colonies 

at  home.^  Thus  the  advantage  of  low  direct  taxation 
partly  disappears  ;  it  is  true  that  the  tax  is  easily  paid, 
but  it  bears  heavily  on  the  poor  whose  consumption  of 
necessaries  is  not  proportionately  much  smaller  than 
that  of  the  wealthy.  It  is  in  great  part  for  this  reason 
that  the  Socialist  party  has  pledged  itself  to  increase 
death  dues  and  to  establish  an  income  tax ;  it  is 
practically  certain  to  succeed  ultimately  in  both  these 
aims,  when  it  will  be  possible  to  reduce  the  cost  of 
living  or  to  foster  the  development  of  social  schemes. 

The  reader  must  have  observed  that  in  the  foregoing 
remarks  practically  no  mention  has  been  made  of  the 
French  colonies  with  the  exception  of  Algeria.  The 
latter  occupies  a  unique  position  and  can  hardly  be 
called  a  colony,  as  we  understand  the  word.  Strictly 
speaking,  no  exotic  French  settlement  can  be  compared 
either  with  British  crown  colonies,  unrepresented  as 
they  are  in  the  Legislature,  or  with  the  self-governing 
nations  whose  connection  with  the  United  Kingdom 
becomes  ever  more  shadowy.  Most  French  colonies 
are  represented  in  the  home  Parliament,  to  which  they 
elect  ten  deputies  and  four  senators  (excluding  Algeria) ; 
the  interests  of  the  smaller  settlements  are  protected  by 
the  members  of  a  special  council. 

Leaving  aside  Algeria,  which  is  looked  upon  as  part 
of  France,  from  which  it  is  only  separated  by  a  day's 
journey,  we  find  that  the  colonies  are  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  in  a  similar  position,  in  fact  if  not  in  name. 
Their  affairs  are  managed  much  on  the  same  lines  as  are 
those  of  a  French  departe^neni,  highly  centralised  and 

'  This  is  worth  noting,  in  view  of  the  suggestion  that  we  should  resist 
"dumping"  by  tariffs,  in  fact,  that  we  should  become  "dumpers,"  viz, 
sell  cheaply  to  the  foreigner  and  at  high  prices  to  the  Englishman. 

213 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  Paris  executive,  as  repre- 
sented by  the  Colonial  Office.^  It  would  be  impossible 
to  manage  them  otherwise,  because  their  white  popula- 
tion is  so  small  (it  does  not  reach  a  million)  and  so 
scattered  that  self-government  would  be  out  of  the 
question  even  if  France  were  prepared  to  grant  it. 
Before  considering  French  colonial  matters,  we  must, 
however,  dispose  of  trade  questions  and  we  are  at  once 
impressed  by  the  extraordinary  insignificance  of  French 
colonial  commerce;  in  1906  the  total  trade  only 
amounted  to  ;^4 1 ,000,000,  of  which  Algeria  accounted 
for  ;^24,ooo,ooo.  A  comparison  with  the  figures 
recorded  for  the  British  Empire  shows  that  the  colonial 
trade  of  the  latter  is  about  six  times  more  important 
and  that  it  is  increasing,  which  is  hardly  the  case  with 
France.  The  commercial  link  that  has  so  long  united 
the  scattered  possessions  of  the  British  crown  can  there- 
fore hardly  be  said  to  exist  when  the  total  trade  with  the 
mother  country  only  amounts  to  about  ten  per  cent  of 
the  latter's  total ;  in  default  of  sentimental  ties  which 
cannot  easily  be  formed  between  white  races  and 
coloured,  this  most  effective  bond  of  union  being  non- 
existent, the  colonies  of  France  can  be  looked  upon  as 
held  only  by  the  power  of  the  sword.  I  do  not  suggest 
that  they  are  disaffected  ;  colonies  where  no  form  of 
self-government  has  ever  been  introduced  rarely  show 
signs  of  hostility  among  the  native  races.  It  is  the 
example  and  the  teaching  of  the  white  that  provoke 
unrest  in  such  countries  as  India,  South  Africa  or 
Egypt ;    the  coloured   subjects  of   France  are  hardly 

^  An  attempt  is  now  being  made  to  encourage  local  government  by 
entrusting  the  colonies  with  the  management  of  their  finances,  but  it  is 
too  early  to  decide  whether  the  experiment  is  likely  to  be  successful. 

214 


Trade  and  Colonies 

aware  of  the  meaning  of  parliamentary  government  and 
placidly  accept  the  supremacy  of  the  white. 

Thus,  both  the  commercial  and  the  sentimental  tie 
being  weak,  France  has  found  it  necessary  to  introduce 
into  her  colonies  the  bureaucratic  system  that  prevails 
at  home.  Algeria  alone  has  emerged  from  political 
barbarism,  thanks  to  the  proximity  of  the  mother 
country  and  to  the  comparatively  large  influx  of  white 
men,  French,  Italian  and  Spanish.  But  if  we  consider 
the  other  colonies  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  they 
are  as  yet  a  total  failure.  If  we  admit  that  a  successful 
colony  is  one  where  numerous  settlers  decide  to  seek 
their  fortune  and  to  establish  homes,  where  trade 
develops  and  revenue  suffices  to  meet  expenditure,  we 
find  that  the  French  possessions  realise  none  of  these 
conditions  and  do  not  appear  likely  ever  to  do  so.  It 
has  been  argued  by  French  colonial  students  that 
British  colonies  are  not  so  successful  as  is  usually  made 
out ;  they  triumphantly  point  out  that  Great  Britain 
still  defrays  practically  the  bulk  of  military  expenditure 
and  is  recompensed  by  seeing  her  exports  taxed  :  while 
admitting  that  there  is  much  truth  in  the  contention,  it 
is  however  obvious  that  Great  Britain  reaps  definite 
advantages  that  may  or  may  not  be  adequate  but 
which  immeasurably  exceed  the  benefits  conferred 
upon  France  by  her  sway  over  the  next  great  colonial 
empire. 

Not  only  is  French  trade  with  the  colonies  very 
small,  but  the  burden  of  their  administration  and  de-. 
fence  is  enormous  ;  in  1906  the  colonial  budget  showed 
a  deficit  of  about  ;!^3,6oo,ooo,  to  which  should  be  added 
a  large  proportion  of  the  army  and  navy  estimates 
and  a  deficit  of  ;^3,ooo,oog  on  Algeria  alone,  that  gem 

215 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  French  colonies.  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong  if  we 
conclude  that  the  profits  on  ;^4i, 000,000  of  trade  do 
not  compensate  the  mother  country  for  this  deficit  of 
6|  millions  plus  defence,  which  is  borne  by  the  French 
taxpayer.  If  a  careful  inquiry  were  instituted,  on 
purely  financial  grounds,  it  might  be  found  that  British 
colonies  were  a  poor  speculation,  but  it  needs  no  further 
inquiry  to  show  that  France  would  be  far  better  off  if 
shorn  of  her  colonial  empire.  No  trade,  no  emigra- 
tion, large  and  regular  deficits,  such  is  the  sorry  tale 
told  by  French  colonial  records ;  this  is  not  a  question 
of  "  turning  the  corner,"  for  Algeria,  whose  deficit 
accounts  for  nearly  one-half  the  total,  has  been  in  the 
hands  of  the  mother  country  for  over  seventy  years. 

The  causes  of  the  French  colonial  fiasco  are  to  be 
sought  for  to  a  certain  extent  in  the  nature  of  the  over- 
sea possessions  and  particularly  in  the  French  character. 
Though  Algeria,  Madagascar  and  Indo-China  offer  im- 
mense possibilities  to  agriculture  and  commerce,  the 
larger  portion  of  the  French  possessions  is  represented 
by  the  sands  of  the  Sahara,  which  are  not  likely  ever 
to  pay  for  a  fraction  of  the  military  expenditure  they 
entail.  The  West  African  possessions  have  frightened 
away  the  few  settlers  that  might  have  been  tempted  by 
them,  for  their  climate  is  murderous  and  unpleasant ; 
Madagascar  shares  somewhat  the  same  reputation  and 
other  colonies  are  either  earthquake  spots,  small  or 
strictly  preserved  for  the  deportation  of  convicts.  Yet, 
out  of  Algeria,  Tunisia,  Indo-China  and  Madagascar 
alone,  a  great  colonial  empire  could  have  been  built, 
extending  as  it  does  over  an  area  equal  to  about  three 
times  that  of  France.  These  colonies  are  the  most 
interesting,   not   only   as    regards   money   values,   but 

216 


Trade  and  Colonies 

because  they  have  attracted  the  larger  numbers  of 
French  emigrants.  If  we  reduce  by  half  the  estimated 
area  of  the  French  possessions  by  counting  as  nil  the 
Sahara  and  the  plague  spots  of  West  Africa,  we  arrive 
at  an  area  equal  to  nearly  ten  times  that  of  France, 
blessed  with  the  most  varied  climates  and  often  advan- 
tageously situated  as  regards  native  labour.  Had  such 
material  been  placed  in  British  hands  the  story  would 
no  doubt  be  a  very  different  one,  not  only  because  our 
countrymen  are  more  successful  colonists,  but  because 
conditions  in  Great  Britain  are  as  favourable  to  colonial 
expansion  as  they  are  hostile  in  France. 

The  French  colonial  failure  is  not  so  much  due  to  the 
characteristics  of  the  colonies  as  to  peculiarities  of  the 
French  temperament,  of  the  regime  and  of  national 
social  conditions.  It  would  be  unfair  to  dub  the 
Frenchman  unenterprising,  for  he  has  won  his  spurs 
as  an  explorer,  a  soldier  and  a  privateersman  ;  if  his 
colonial  empire  is  undeveloped  it  is  mainly  because  he 
has  not  been  crowded  out  of  his  own  country  as  has 
been  the  fate  of  the  Anglo-Saxon.  For  many  years 
the  population  of  France  has  been  practically  un- 
changing, as  the  birthrate  and  the  deathrate  are  roughly 
balanced  ;  the  small  increase  is  mainly  due  to  the 
shrinkage  in  the  deathrate,  which  does  not  make  for  a 
plethora  of  young  citizens  anxious  for  an  opening,  and 
to  immigration.  The  young  men  of  France  find  no 
difficulty  in  living  in  a  country  where  the  fluctuations 
of  the  population  are  so  nicely  adjusted  that  men 
naturally  step  into  the  shoes  vacated  by  their  seniors. 
If  we  make  every  allowance  for  wanderlust  we  cannot 
otherwise  explain  British  emigration  than  by  admitting 
that  these  islands  have  long  been  too  small  for  their 

217 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

ever-increasing  population.  To  this  day  there  is  con- 
siderable excess  of  births  over  deaths  in  Great  Britain  ; 
it  is  likely  that  improved  land  conditions  would  detain 
many  who  go  to  seek  a  living,  particularly  in  Canada, 
but  there  is  a  limit  to  the  productivity  of  the  land, 
past  which  emigration  is  automatic. 

Existing  commercial  and  industrial  openings  suffice 
in  France  for  the  offspring  of  the  classes  that  devote 
themselves  to  these  occupations,  so  that  a  natural  check 
intervenes  when  emigration  occurs  to  the  young  man  ; 
he  naturally  hesitates  before  surrendering  his  chances 
at  home  for  shadowy  prospects  in  the  colonies  and,  in 
most  cases,  elects  to  stay.  As  regards  the  landed  class, 
the  innumerable  small  French  estates  pass  automatically 
from  father  to  son  ;  they  are  often  divided,  but  a  limit 
is  set  to  the  splitting  up  of  holdings  by  the  habitual 
sale  of  lands  to  which  there  is  no  male  heir.  The 
peasantry  is  of  all  classes  the  most  sedentary  ;  it  rarely 
emigrates  from  Great  Britain  so  long  as  it  can  earn  the 
barest  of  livings :  in  France,  where  agriculturists  are 
prosperous  and  independent,  where  to  hire  land  is  less 
usual  than  to  own  it,  there  is  no  inducement  to  forsake 
the  soil. 

These  remarks  resolve  themselves  in  the  conclusion 
that  well-being  has  militated  against  emigration  ;  as 
regards  the  prosperity  of  the  individual  this  is  an  excel- 
lent thing,  for  emigration  is  only  a  vent  and  not  a 
desirable  result.  If  we  consider  the  position  of  the 
race,  it  becomes,  however,  a  source  of  danger ;  acute 
competition,  which  exists  in  armaments  and  in  com- 
merce, has  not  spared  population  :  it  is  permissible  to 
wonder  whether  France  will  not  eventually  find  herself 
in  a  serious  position  when  confronted  by  her  enormous 

218 


Trade  and  Colonies 

neighbours  for  whom  expansion  is  the  breath  of  life. 
However,  at  the  present  time,  France  is  to  be  envied 
rather  than  pitied,  as  she  has  in  her  colonies  a  reserve 
which  she  may  or  may  not  make  use  of,  but  which  is 
none  the  less  in  being. 

Comfort  and  a  low  birthrate  have  also  had  social 
effects ;  small  families  are  the  rule  and,  among  the 
middle  classes,  the  only  child  is  of  very  frequent  occur- 
rence. If  it  be  an  only  son,  he  is  assured  of  ultimately 
inheriting  his  parents'  fortune,  which  need  not  be  large 
to  satisfy  the  average  Frenchman  ;  he  enjoys  all  the 
care  of  his  parents,  has  a  monopoly  of  education  and 
is  ensured  a  start  in  life.  There  is  no  inducement  for 
him  to  abandon  France ;  moreover,  family  relations 
are  singularly  close,  particularly  the  bond  that  unites 
mothers  and  sons.  Thus  the  entire  influence  of  the 
mother  is  nearly  invariably  arrayed  against  emigration 
and  the  son  usually  responds.  Unless  he  be  bent  on 
emigrating  these  combined  factors  necessarily  deter  him 
and  he  chooses  France,  unless  he  obtain  a  civil  or  mili- 
tary post  in  the  service  of  the  Government. 

Against  these  inducements  to  stay  in  France,  the 
attractions  of  the  colonies  do  not  weigh  very  heavily 
because  they  are  far  from  holding  out  the  prospects 
that  are  so  richly  forthcoming  in  the  British  Empire. 
French  possessions  suffer  acutely  from  centralisation  ; 
as  has  already  been  put  forward,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  grant  them  full  self-government,  owing  to  the  huge 
outnumbering  of  whites  by  coloured  men.  Thus  we 
find  ourselves  in  an  impasse :  the  settlers  do  not  in- 
crease because  the  colonies  are  ill-administered  and  the 
colonies  must  remain  ill-administered  because  settlers 
do  not  increase.     Bureaucracy  is  rampant  in  all  French 

219 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

colonies ;  a  number  of  unnecessary  posts  have  been 
created  to  satisfy  private  interests  and  to  provide 
administrative  machinery  for  a  far  larger  population 
than  will  ever  settle.  In  small  colonies  the  bulk  of  the 
whites  is  composed  of  soldiers  and  officials ;  in  the 
larger  ones  the  remainder  is  often  mainly  foreign.  In 
Algeria,  for  instance,  the  French  aggregate  only  300,000 
as  against  250,000  foreigners,  leaving  out  of  count  those 
who  are  naturalised.  As  this  figure  of  300,000  includes 
the  army  and  the  officials,  we  find  that,  even  in  this 
gem  of  colonies,  trade  is  mainly  in  the  hands  of  the 
foreigner.  But  Algeria  is  prosperous  enough  and  is 
the  favourite  goal  of  French  emigrants ;  if  we  turn  to 
any  other  colony,  the  position  is  different.  There  the 
official  and  military  elements  are  dominant  and  arro- 
gant, as  they  invariably  become  in  countries  where  the 
natives  are  numerous  and  white  men  are  few.  The 
settler  finds  himself  enmeshed  in  red  tape,  flouted  by 
the  military  and  passed  over  by  the  officials  ;  he  has  to 
contend,  not  only  with  the  usual  colonial  difficulties, 
such  as  the  procuring  of  capital  and  native  labour,  fight- 
ing disease,  etc.,  but  with  the  indifference  of  the  authori- 
ties and  the  interminable  delay  entailed  by  referring 
matters  of  small  importance  to  Paris.  An  indication 
of  this  state  of  things  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
many  a  French  settler  has  left  Senegal  or  the  Coast  of 
Ivory  for  the  neighbouring  British  colonies. 

The  powers  are  well  aware  that  the  colonies  are  not 
in  a  satisfactory  condition  and  have  made  efforts  to 
remedy  the  state  of  things  ;  propaganda  has  been  and 
is  being  conducted  in  the  schools,  in  the  universities 
and  in  the  Press,  but  it  has  fallen  flat,  if  we  leave  out 
the  concession  hunter  who  is  often  a  foreigner.     Up  to 


Trade  and  Colonies 

the  institution  of  the  two  years'  military  service,  con- 
siderable advantages  were  even  granted  to  young  settlers, 
who  were  offered  an  exemption  of  two  years'  service  out 
of  three,  provided  that  they  settled  in  a  French  colony 
for  eleven  years,  beginning  at  the  age  of  nineteen. 
However,  there  was  no  response  and  this  privilege  has 
been  swept  away  unregretted,  with  the  other  exemp- 
tions. 

Socially,  financially,  commercially,  whether  we  look 
upon  them  as  preserves  for  the  youth  of  the  nation  or 
as  political  heirlooms,  the  French  colonies  are  a  failure. 
It  seems  hardly  likely  that  they  will,  for  the  greater 
part,  emerge  from  the  slough  of  despond  in  which  they 
are  plunged.  Algeria,  a  seventy-year-old  colony,  shows 
a  deficit  of  ;6"3, 000,000  ;  Indo-China,  which  has  been  in 
the  hands  of  France  for  over  twenty  years,  entails 
military  expenditure  to  the  amount  of  ;^  1,600,000  per 
annum  ;  whether  the  colonies  be  young  or  old  the  same 
tale  of  heavy  costs,  small  returns  and  poor  trade  must 
be  told.  A  touch  of  irony  is  lent  to  these  remarks  when 
we  observe  that  the  most  untrammelled  of  the  French 
possessions,  viz.  Tunisia,  is  the  only  one  that  pays  its 
way ;  the  protectorate  succeeds  where  the  colony  fails. 
This  must  not  be  taken  as  absolute,  as  Tunisia  should 
of  course  be  responsible  for  part  of  the  expenditure  on 
defence,  but  it  is  much  in  the  same  position  as  those 
British  colonies  which  enjoy  the  protection  of  the 
mother  country  at  the  latter's  expense. 

I  cannot  conceive  that  French  colonies  may  event- 
ually be  successful  unless  two  circumstances  should 
modify  present  conditions.  The  one  is  an  increase  in 
the  population  so  large  that  numerous  settlers  may  be 
forthcoming ;    the   other   is   that,   following    on    their 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

emigration,  French  systems  may  be  altered  and  a 
measure  of  self-government  be  given  the  colonies. 
Neither  is  likely  to  happen  ;  the  birthrate  shows  no 
signs  of  increasing  any  more  than  it  does  in  other  old 
European  states.  The  void  may  be  filled  by  British 
and  German  immigration,  but  whether  these  elements 
will  easily  be  merged  into  the  existing  population  is 
a  matter  for  conjecture  and  for  doubt  when  we 
remember  that  they  do  not  always  assimilate  even  in 
America. 

As  regards  full  self-government,  it  is  unlikely  to  follow 
even  on  a  considerable  increase  of  population,  wedded 
as  are  French  governments  to  the  highly  centralised 
machine  inherited  from  the  first  Napoleon  ;  the  problem 
is,  however,  not  likely  to  crop  up,  as  the  first  condition 
does  not  seem  attainable,  so  that  France  will  be  spared 
the  colonial  difficulties  that  brought  about  the  secession 
of  Great  Britain's  North  American  possessions. 

The  foregoing  presents  a  gloomy  picture,  but  it  is  a 
subject  for  congratulation  that  France  has  maintained 
her  position  without  the  aid  of  colonial  adjuncts  and  it 
reads  a  lesson  that  ambitious  politicians  may  study, 
when  they  contemplate  launching  their  forces  into 
adventures  that  must  be  costly  and  may  not  be 
necessary  for  the  good  of  the  State. 


222 


CHAPTER  XI 
FRANCE   AMONG   THE   NATIONS 

TWO  centuries  ago  it  would  have  been  easy  enough 
to  make  a  list  of  nations  worthy  of  being 
called  great  powers ;  a  hundred  years  later,  from  a 
modified  point  of  view,  a  slightly  different  list  would 
have  been  prepared  ;  if  we  now  give  way  to  these 
speculations  we  have  again  no  difficulty  in  arriving  at  a 
short  list  of  nations  with  the  development  of  which  the 
world  must  count.  Should  we  do  so,  we  find  without 
hesitation  that  the  claim  of  France  is  well  established, 
not  so  much  in  a  particular  respect  as  in  all  respects. 

These  remarks  lead  us  to  an  interesting  conclusion  : 
France  has  never  grown  old,  has  never  suffered  from 
political  ups  and  downs,  from  external  wars  and  civil 
turmoil.  This  is  all  the  more  singular  because  France 
is  an  old  country,  the  political  frontiers  of  which  were 
roughly  established  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century;  the  wars  of  Louis  XIV  did  not  add  much  to 
her  possessions ;  those  of  Napoleon  only  added  that 
which  the  army  could  hold  for  the  time  being.  The 
consequences  of  age  should  therefore  have  been  felt,  for 
there  was  every  opportunity  for  decadence.  All  the 
factors  were  present  in  the  shape  of  war,  wealth  and 
iniquity.  Yet,  for  some  unknown  reason,  France  has 
never  lost  her  status,  while  other  races  have  suffered 

223 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

from  the  swing  of  the  pendulum,  so  much  so  that  it  has 
become  a  truism  to  say  that  no  nation  can  hope  for 
eternal  greatness  but  must  decay  and  die,  as  do  its 
individual  citizens. 

Except  in  the  case  of  Great  Britain,  whose  insular 
position  makes  comparison  with  any  other  country 
impossible,  the  history  of  Europe  during  the  last  five 
centuries  is  a  picture  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  various 
powers,  which  have  in  succession  swayed  the  destinies 
of  the  continent.  One  after  the  other  emerged  from 
obscurity,  more  or  less  speedily  to  return  to  it.  Spain 
had  her  great  days  under  Charles  V,  under  Philip  II — 
and  what  is  Spain  to-day?  Denmark,  once  the  over- 
lord of  Norway  and  of  Northern  Germany,  is  now  a 
pigmy  kingdom  owing  its  continued  existence  to 
European  jealousies  ;  Sweden  still  cherishes  the  memory 
of  Gustavus  Adolphus,  of  Charles  XII  and  yet  lives  in 
daily  fear  of  the  Teuton  and  the  Slav.  On  the  other 
hand  we  see  Italy  come  into  being  not  half  a  century 
ago  and  struggle  towards  power,  thanks  to  the  megalo- 
maniac energy  of  Cavour  and  of  Crispi ;  side  by  side 
with  the  House  of  Savoy,  the  House  of  Hohenzollern 
carries  the  German  Empire  to  the  pinnacle  of  European 
power ;  the  United  States  drown  in  blood  the  internal 
fires  of  disruption  ;  Japan  witnesses  the  astounding 
phenomenon  of  a  progressive  theocratic  revolution.  All 
through  this  storm  and  stress  the  position  of  France 
remains  unaltered  ;  like  lava-born  islands  thrust  through 
the  waves,  kingdoms  arise  suddenly,  kingdoms  totter 
and,  crumbling,  bring  down  with  them  a  dynasty  or  a 
system.  France  meanwhile  is  a  little  more  or  a  little 
less  powerful  as  the  case  may  be,  but  France  remains  a 
great  power  ;    she  has  the  secret  of  perpetual  youth. 

224 


France  among  the  Nations 

Thus,  when  we  look  upon  her  to-day,  we  are  surprised 
to  see  that  she  has  escaped  convulsion,  and  we  do  not 
at  once  perceive  the  causes  of  the  phenomenon.  We 
may  have  definite  views  as  to  the  factors  that  make  for 
power,  but,  whatever  they  be,  France  does  not  at 
first  sight  appear  to  be  affected  by  them  and  yet  the 
fact  remains  that  she  is  a  great  power. 

Roughly  speaking,  a  great  power  is  a  great  military 
power ;  a  large  army  and  an  efficient  navy  do  not  in 
themselves  place  a  nation  at  the  head  of  its  rivals,  but 
the  possession  of  these  advantages  enables  it  to  develop 
its  trade  and  its  industries,  to  foster  learning  and  the 
arts,  so  that  it  may  become  great  in  the  true  sense  of 
the  word.  The  argument  of  the  gun  is  final,  but  if  men 
were  rated  by  their  brute  strength  our  roll  of  honour 
would  be  inscribed  with  the  names  of  Mendoza  and 
other  Tutbury  Pets,  rather  than  with  those  of  Huxley 
and  Spencer.  This  remark  applies  to  nations  ;  none  will 
contend  that  Abyssinia  ranks  with  Italy,  though  in  the 
late  contest  Abyssinia  won. 

From  the  political  point  of  view  the  position  of 
France  is  now  secured,  since  the  Republic  has  been 
recognised  by  all  civilised  races  ;  the  Pretenders  are  still 
courteously  received  by  their  royal  relatives,  as  is  fair 
and  proper,  but  no  one  dreams  of  construing  the  fact 
into  a  protest  against  the  present  form  of  government. 
Thus  there  are  in  the  way  of  international  intercourse 
no  difficulties  such  as  those  that  beset  Servia ;  the  facts 
have  been  accepted,  and  France  has  been  fully 
amnestied  by  her  fellow  nations.  She  is  now  judged 
and  rated  on  her  merits,  not  on  her  stormy  past ;  the 
basis  of  her  present  power  is  alone  considered  and,  if 
analysed  critically,  it  does  not  at  first  sight  justify  her 
Q  225 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

European  status.  France  is  strong,  but  she  is  prob- 
ably weaker  than  Germany  and  Russia,  weaker  perhaps 
than  Great  Britain  in  the  aggregate ;  commercially 
speaking  her  oversea  trade  is  far  inferior  to  that  of 
Germany  and  Great  Britain,  as  also  to  that  of  the 
United  States  ;  her  industries  are  not  favoured  by  the 
existence  on  her  soil  of  metals  and  coal ;  her  colonies 
are  neither  thickly  populated  by  settlers  nor  develop- 
ing on  sound  financial  lines  ;  her  art  is  dominant,  but 
the  arts  do  not  weigh  much  in  a  scale  loaded  with  big 
guns  ;  to  crown  all  these  disadvantages,  let  us  mention 
that  her  deathrate  is  practically  equal  to  her  birthrate, 
so  that  the  population  does  not  increase,  an  excellent 
result  as  regards  the  planet,  but  fatal  as  regards  the 
nation. 

Yet  France  emphatically  preserves  her  position  as  a 
great  power ;  she  has  never  lost  it  from  the  time  when 
her  starving  heroes  won  Valmy  and  Jemappes  to  that 
day  when  the  German  troops  marched  through  Paris. 
In  her  darkest  hours  France  was  great,  and  the  last 
forty  years  of  peace  have  but  increased  her  greatness. 
To  what  is  this  to  be  ascribed  ?  As  was  hinted  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  the  claims  of  France  are 
more  understandable  if  taken  in  toto  than  if  they  are 
analysed  separately ;  but  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  right 
view  of  the  case,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  them 
separately,  and  then  to  take  a  general  survey. 

In  all  likelihood  much  of  the  present  importance  of 
France  is  due  to  her  traditions ;  I  do  not  say  that  the 
Republic  lives  on  the  reputation  of  its  predecessors, 
but  no  race  entirely  shakes  off  either  the  prestige  or 
the  odium  arising  out  of  its  past  history.  The  name  of 
Spain  still   suggests  magnificence  and   the  arrogance 

226 


France  among  the  Nations 

of  a  King  on  whose  dominions  the  sun  never  set ; 
"  Rome "  means  an  iron  republic  or  an  all-embracing 
empire,  ruthless,  polished,  hardly  human.  So,  too,  has 
the  tradition  of  France  been  handed  down  ;  all  the 
glamour  of  the  Great  Revolution  and  of  the  Napoleonic 
period  has  been  added  to  the  graces  of  the  Re- 
naissance, to  the  magnificence  and  the  conquests  of 
Louis  XIV,  to  the  learning  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
All  this  has  coloured  foreign  opinion  and  taught  it 
to  expect  a  great  deal  from  the  French,  and  the  know- 
ledge that  much  is  expected  fosters  the  doing  of  great 
deeds ;  the  consciousness  of  a  great  past  is  a  wonderful 
stimulus  for  governments  whose  personal  pride  cannot 
allow  them  to  fall  below  the  highest  standards.  We 
know  that  the  republics  have  never  hesitated  to  make 
their  own  precedents,  but  they  have  always  striven,  the 
third  no  less  than  the  other  two,  to  live  up  to  the  great 
principles  of  1789,  a  nobler  code  by  far  than  any  which 
influenced  the  sumptuous  days  of  royal  rule. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  even  if  the  Republic  had  not 
striven  so  earnestly  for  continuity  of  policy,  the  glamour 
would  not  have  disappeared ;  greatness  would  have 
been  thrust  upon  it  whether  deservedly  or  not.  The 
fact  that  France  was  glorious  in  the  past  is  enough  to 
justify  her  in  the  present,  even  though  other  nations 
have  waxed  powerful  while  she  was  at  a  standstill. 

By  tradition  also,  France  has  been  the  land  of  the 
arts  ;  in  the  chapter  on  Reaction,  it  is  shown  how  the 
Republic  has  preserved  this  tradition  and  fostered  all 
that  is  good  for  men  to  know.  But  leaving  aside  this 
particular  point,  leaving  aside  even  the  natural  genius 
of  the  nation,  we  must  fully  recognise  how  much  of  her 
status  France  owes  to  this  fact.     Arts  and  letters  are 

227 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
subtle  means  of  influence,  but  it  is  in  their  very  nature 
to  be  potent  in  their  action  ;  the  foreigner  who  lands 
in  France  does  so  with  deep  respect  for  her  literary  and 
artistic  past,  if  he  be  cognisant  of  its  existence.  We 
must  realise  that  this  nation  struggled  into  its  intellec- 
tual position  when  the  rest  of  the  world  was  practically 
sunk  in  barbarism ;  there  are  older  civilisations,  it  is 
true,  but  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  from  which 
time  the  French  Renaissance  can  be  traced,  Italy  alone, 
and  there  but  a  few  states,  had  been  at  all  influenced 
by  the  awakening.  Europe  had  not  thoroughly  re- 
covered from  the  barbarian  ravages  of  the  fifth  and 
sixth  centuries,  nor  from  the  Moorish  wars  in  the  seventh 
and  eighth ;  thus  France  was  the  first  to  regain  her 
strength  and  anticipated  by  some  fifty  years  the  burst- 
ing into  flower  of  the  Elizabethan  period.  The  tradi- 
tion was  never  forgotten  ;  indeed,  the  earliest  offspring 
of  the  Renaissance  were  outstripped  by  their  intellec- 
tual heirs  ;  from  Francois  I  to  the  dawn  of  the  twentieth 
century  the  movement,  chequered  as  it  necessarily  was, 
never  ceased.  Upon  this  literary  renown  is  based  a 
great  part  of  the  prestige  of  France ;  indeed,  when  it  is 
questioned,  the  word  "  tradition  "  is  in  itself  a  sufficient 
answer. 

There  is,  however,  yet  another  tradition  to  which  we 
can  trace  her  present  greatness  ;  to  have  been  strong  is 
an  excellent  thing ;  to  have  been  learned  is  equally 
valuable;  but  France  has  been  more  than  conquering 
or  wise.  Her  history  shows  her  to  have  been  a  faithful 
ally ;  her  people  are  sentimental,  given  to  sometimes 
misplaced  enthusiasm,  quick,  impulsive  and  wholly 
generous.  Michelet  conjures  up  for  us  a  magnificent 
picture  of  her  past : — 

228 


France  among  the  Nations 

"  Stack  up,  all  ye  nations  that  be  !  stack  up  all  gener- 
ous and  sumptuous  deeds  by  which  humanity  alone 
could  benefit !  The  pyramid  of  France  would  rise 
gloriously  towards  the  heavens  and  yours,  oh  !  nations  ! 
yours  would  barely  reach  the  knees  of  a  little  child  !  " 

Lost  causes  have  always  been  French  causes  ;  the 
sword  has  always  been  drawn  on  behalf  of  the  weak ; 
French  blood  has  flowed  for  the  Pole,  for  the  Greek,  for 
struggling  Italy,  for  the  insurgent  North  American 
colonies.  Moreover,  once  her  word  was  pledged,  France 
never  withdrew  ;  in  modern  history,  the  abandonment 
of  Maximilian  to  the  Mexicans,  who  were  soon  to 
execute  him  at  Queretaro,  is  a  solitary  exception.  But, 
in  this  case,  the  heart  of  the  French  people  was  never 
in  the  mad  scheme,  a  product  of  the  quixotic  brain  of 
a  second-rate  Napoleon  ;  history  can  quote  no  instance 
where  the  French  people  have  turned  from  a  friendly 
compact  at  the  call  of  their  interests.  They  co-operated 
loyally  with  the  British  in  the  Crimea ;  it  was  thirty 
years  at  least  before  the  peoples  were  estranged,  and 
recent  events  have  shown  how  shallow  the  misunder- 
standing was.  Their  friendship  for  Russia  has  been 
unimpaired  even  by  the  troublous  happenings  in  the 
Far  East ;  the  good  offices  of  the  Republic  were  avail- 
able, some  ten  years  after  the  conclusion  of  the  Franco- 
Russian  alliance,  to  smooth  serious  differences  between 
Russia  and  Great  Britain,  in  which  good  work  the 
Government  was  warmly  supported  by  the  country. 
Neither  the  defeats  in  Manchuria,  nor  the  civil  turmoil 
from  which  Russia  is  suffering,  have  detached  France 
from  an  alliance  to  which  she  is  pledged  :  in  matters 
political  where  the  word  of  the  people  is,  there  their 
heart  is  also, 

229 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

On  these  three  great  traditions,  of  past  prominence, 
of  learning  and  of  loyalty,  is  in  great  part  based  the 
dominating  position  of  France.  There  are,  however, 
other  considerations,  for  no  nation  can  continue  to  live 
on  even  the  most  glorious  of  pasts ;  there  are  precise 
advantages  to  which  the  country  owes  its  position, 
advantages  both  permanent  and  temporary,  and  these 
we  must  now  consider.  The  most  Important  Is  doubt- 
less the  military  power  of  the  Republic,  both  on  land 
and  sea.  Let  us  again  emphasise  the  fact  that  no 
nation  can  be  truly  great  unless  it  possess  the  power  of 
the  sword  ;  a  strong  and  efficient  army  inspires  a  nation 
with  the  confidence  and  magnanimity  that  well-trained 
muscles  give  the  citizen.  The  weak  are  too  often 
cowardly,  crafty  and  mean  :  they  cannot  afford  to  be 
otherwise ;  the  strong  can  Indulge  in  generosity,  patience 
and  mercy.  The  Socratic  maxim  "  Thy  temper  rises  : 
therefore  thou  art  wrong  "  applies  forcibly  In  this  case  ; 
strength  tends  to  the  preservation  of  the  peace,  because 
the  strong  man  knows  that  If  necessary  he  can  Impose 
his  will  upon  the  weaker ;  he  will  not  do  so  ruthlessly, 
because  the  latent  threat  will  gain  him  his  ends.  It  is  a 
happy  position,  similar  to  that  of  the  man  of  Indepen- 
dent means,  who  feels  able  to  defy  the  world  and  yet 
treats  it  with  courtesy. 

This  enviable  situation  Is  to  a  great  extent  that  of 
France.  Her  military  resources  are  doubtless  inferior 
to  those  of  Germany  and  of  Russia,  but  not  so  inferior 
as  to  create  fear  In  the  minds  of  her  statesmen.  No 
nation  whose  standing  army  consists  of  575,000  men, 
backed  by  a  reserve  of  2,000,000  trained  soldiers  who 
have  not  attained  the  age  of  thirty-five,  need  fear  a 
European  war ;  at  the  present  time,  the  French  army 

230 


France  among  the  Nations 

could  muster  over  2,500,000^  men,  not  one  of  whom 
would  be  less  well  trained  than  our  reservists  and  half  a 
million  of  whom  would  be  equal  to  the  British  regular. 
In  the  presence  of  such  numbers  it  matters  but  little 
whether  or  no  her  eastern  neighbours  could  outnumber 
her  troops  by  five  to  three  as  is  their  boast ;  the  spoils 
of  war  do  not  fall  only  to  the  big  battalions  :  they 
belong  rather  to  the  efficient  and  to  the  patriotic.  With 
such  forces,  France  fears  no  foe  on  land  ;  indeed,  she 
could  well  afford  to  launch  out  into  foreign  adventure  : 
the  fact  that  she  has  not  chosen  to  do  so  to  any  extent 
since  the  Franco-German  War  is  evidence  that  strength 
does  not  as  necessarily  breed  gluttony  as  many  are 
inclined  to  believe. 

If  we  consider  the  French  fleet,  we  arrive  at  similar 
conclusions  ;  much  that  makes  for  inefficiency  and  laxity 
has  of  late  come  to  light,  but  can  any  system  boast  of 
being  wholly  beyond  suspicion?  Without  attempting 
to  shift  the  ground  of  the  argument  by  a  threadbare  tti 
qiioque,  the  facts  may  be  admitted  without  weakening 
the  position  ;  the  fleet  has  deteriorated  because  it  has 
had  no  work  to  do.  It  might  be  retorted  that  the  army 
also  has  had  but  i&\^  chances  of  proving  its  mettle  and 
yet  has  not  suffered  the  same  fate.  The  reason  is  to  be 
sought  in  the  fact  that  the  French  are  hardly  a  seafaring 
race,  whereas  they  are  emphatically  military ;  thus, 
during  the  many  years  of  peace,  it  is  the  navy  that  went 
to  seed.  The  statement  gains  force  when  we  consider 
the  contrary  position  of  Great  Britain  ;  here  we  find  a 
seafaring  race  whose  navy  preserves  its  efficiency  with- 
out firing  a  gun,  while  its  army  declines  and  only  saves 
the  situation  in  an  emergency  by  dint  of  gigantic  efforts. 

^  First  reserves  only  ;  all  told  the  figure  is  over  4,000,000. 
231 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

But  the  British  army  is  being  constantly  reorganised 
and  will  probably  resume  its  old  status  ;  the  French 
navy,  still  the  second  most  powerful  in  the  world,  will 
a  few  years  hence  feel  the  benefit  of  latter-day  scandals. 
If  we  take  the  army  and  navy  together,  therefore, 
no  uneasiness  need  be  felt  as  to  the  military  position  of 
the  country.  The  Republic  can  still  justify  its  status  by 
challenging  any  who  doubt  it  to  prove  their  words. 

Military  strength,  though  the  foundation  of  power,  is 
not  enough  ;  it  is  the  ace  of  trumps,  but  the  next  court 
card  is  wealth.  Without  money,  and  especially  without 
gold,  war  cannot  be  waged  ;  it  may  be  said  that  loans 
can  always  be  issued  for  war  purposes,  but  on  what 
terms  ?  It  is  true  that  Russia  had  no  great  difficulty  in 
procuring  the  sinews  of  war,  though  she  had  to  submit 
to  exactions  on  the  part  of  European  financiers,  but  it 
was  well  known  that  Russia  could  only  be  beaten  par- 
tially and  that  the  loans  were  therefore  secure  ;  Japan, 
on  the  other  hand,  though  winning  steadily,  was  in  sore 
straits  for  gold,  and  the  issue  of  loans  by  this  power 
was  a  more  difficult  process  than  the  one  to  which 
its  beaten  foe  was  subjected. 

It  is  in  this  connection  that  France  is  in  a  unique 
position.  Statistics  tell  us  that  the  wealth  of  Great 
Britain  is  greater,  though  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an 
accurate  estimate  of  such  figures,  but,  for  war  purposes, 
it  is  not  so  much  the  total  wealth  that  counts  as  its 
availability.  In  France  there  are  but  few  great  estates, 
as  far  as  can  be  ascertained ;  there  are  more  millionaires 
in  London  than  in  the  whole  of  France,  but  there  are 
several  millions  of  peasant  landowners,  every  one  of 
them  industrious,  frugal  and  indomitably  thrifty ;  the 
peasant  who  does  not,  from  childhood  upwards,  hoard 

232 


France  among  the  Nations 

small  savings  in  coin,  the  artisan  or  domestic  who  does 
not  possess  a  savings-bank  book  is  an  exception.  Add 
to  this  the  enormous  gold  reserves  of  the  Bank  of 
France  and  it  will  be  understood  how  readily  loans  can 
be  placed,  A  slightly  enhanced  rate  of  interest  would 
bring  out  like  magic  these  innumerable  small  holdings 
of  gold/  which  are  only  waiting  for  investment ;  in 
Great  Britain,  where  an  enormous  proportion  of  the 
national  capital  is  in  a  few  hands,  this  would  not  be  the 
case.  The  possessor  of  a  million  might  have  five  per 
cent  of  his  capital  available  for  investment,  the  remainder 
being  sunk  in  land,  industrial  or  colonial  ventures  ;  it 
could  not  be  realised  in  time  of  war  owing  to  depressed 
quotations,  whereas  ten  thousand  possessors  of  an  aver- 
age of  one  hundred  pounds  would  hold  the  bulk  of  their 
capital  in  a  liquid  state,  so  that,  perhaps,  half  of  it  would 
be  available  at  a  low  rate  of  interest.  Thus  the  State 
would  find  at  its  disposal,  instead  of  ;^5o,ooo,  about  ten 
times  that  amount. 

Wealth,  potent  as  it  may  be  in  time  of  war,  is  prob- 
ably more  important  still  in  time  of  peace ;  the  hoard- 
ing tendencies  of  the  French  race  are  rather  a  drawback 
as  regards  commercial  development,  but  they  are  not  a 
really  serious  hindrance.  The  wealth  of  France  is  not 
based  on  commerce  and  industry,  as  is  the  case  in 
Great  Britain,  but  on  agriculture.  If  the  country  were 
divided  into  great  estates  it  would  suffer  from  this  lock- 
ing up  of  capital,  but  as  it  is  the  property  of  some 
millions  of  small  holders  who  work  their  land  them- 
selves, the  need  for  ready  money  does  not  make  itself 

^  It  was  estimated  by  the  United  States  Treasury  Department  that,  in 
1906,  there  was  twice  as  much  gold  per  head  in  France  as  there  is  in 
Great  Britain 

233 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
felt  to  any  great  extent.  Now,  as  some  three  hundred 
years  ago,  in  the  days  of  Sully,  the  ploughed  field  and 
the  pasture  are  the  national  Golconda.  There  is  but 
little  waste  land  in  France ;  even  in  the  centre  of  the 
country,  on  the  mountain  slopes,  as  in  the  lowlands  of 
Gascony,  the  land  that  cannot  be  tilled  has  been  affor- 
ested. There  is  no  room  for  deer  or  pheasant  preserves; 
of  all  businesses  husbandry  is  the  best  understood  and 
is  fostered  by  the  State  by  all  possible  means.  To 
analyse  the  position  of  French  agriculturists  would  be 
tempting,  but  it  would  need  a  book  to  do  the  subject 
justice.  It  is  enough  to  note  that  the  nation  is  not 
only  entirely  self-supporting  as  regards  foodstuffs  such 
as  cereals,  dairy  produce  and  meat,  but  that  it  exports 
largely  to  foreign  markets.  The  United  States  alone 
can  rival  France  in  this  respect  and  even  they  will  not 
be  able  to  do  so  for  an  indefinite  period  if  their  popula- 
tion continues  to  increase.  These  facts  have  an  import- 
ant bearing  upon  the  status  of  the  Republic ;  to  be 
self-supporting  as  regards  the  necessaries  of  bare  life  .is 
far  more  important  than  to  be  predominant  in  trade 
and  industry ;  these  may  wax  or  wane  but,  if  agricul- 
ture is  prosperous,  the  country  will  not  suffer  seriously  ; 
should,  however,  commerce  and  industry  have  displaced 
husbandry,  as  they  appear  to  have  done  in  Great  Britain, 
what  terrors  may  be  bound  up  in  their  possible  deca- 
dence, when  the  nation  that  has  for  many  years  pur- 
chased its  food  instead  of  producing  it  can  no  longer 
pay  for  it,  I  leave  the  reader  to  imagine. 

In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  position  of  France 
cannot  be  assailed ;  strong  in  war  thanks  to  her  army, 
she  is  strong  in  peace  thanks  to  her  wealth  and  to  her 
independence  of  foreign  producers;   in  fact,  no  other 

234 


France  among  the  Nations 

important  European  state,  except  perhaps  Russia,  can 
boast  of  being  so  entirely  self-contained.  It  must,  of 
course,  be  understood  that  trade  and  industry  also  have 
their  place  in  the  scheme  of  national  life  in  France  and 
employ  a  large  proportion  of  the  population,  but  the 
object  of  these  remarks  is  not  so  much  to  describe  the 
position  of  the  various  classes  as  to  see  how  it  is  that 
this  comparatively  small  nation  has  attained  so  high 
a  status  in  the  European  Concert,  The  points  already 
noticed  are  doubtless  the  principal  components  of 
Gallic  influence,  but  there  are  still  a  few  to  which  we 
should  devote  our  attention,  not  the  least  interesting 
being  the  extent  to  which  France  has  been  benefited  by 
her  geographical  configuration  and  her  general  situation. 
From  this  point  of  view  France  can  be  looked  upon 
as  the  typical  Western  European  state,  particularly  if 
we  invest  the  word  "  Western  "  with  the  suggestion  of 
Liberalism  that  it  usually  carries.  Great  Britain  alone 
could  hope  to  vie  with  her  in  this  respect,  but  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  this  country,  because  it  is  an 
island,  can  never  be  a  type  but  must  remain  an  excep- 
tion to  all  rules.  Europe  is  a  continent  and,  as  islands 
invariably  engender  in  their  inhabitants  peculiarities  of 
character  and  government,  Great  Britain  cannot  be 
looked  upon  as  typical.  Islanders  are  at  the  same  time 
strangely  broad,  thanks  to  their  natural  tendency  to 
encourage  oversea  trade  and  to  mix  with  men  of  many 
nations,  and  strangely  narrow  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
great  mass  of  their  population  have  but  few  opportuni- 
ties of  coming  into  contact  with  other  races.  As  is 
shown  in  another  chapter,  frontier  races  are  never  of  as 
pure  a  stock  as  are  the  hinterlanders  ;  they  intermarry 
freely  with  the   neighbouring   alien,  they  become   ac- 

235 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

quainted  with  his  language  and  his  reh'gion,  whereas 
the  islander  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  these 
influences  and  has  a  natural  tendency  to  become  self- 
centred  and  to  develop  his  character  on  definite  national 
lines.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  we  must  set  aside  the 
possible  claim  of  Great  Britain  to  the  title  of  typical 
Western  European  state ;  if  we  rule  this  country  out, 
the  only  alternative  is  Germany,  for  the  Mediterranean 
races  are  undoubtedly  influenced  by  Africa  and  Russia 
is  practically  a  modern  Mongol  state.  But  Germany 
also  must  yield  to  France  in  this  respect ;  not  only  are 
her  institutions  of  a  conservative  character  foreign  to 
Western  ideals,  but  her  remoteness  from  the  sea,  particu- 
larly from  the  beneficent  Atlantic,  has  tended  to  isolate 
her  from  the  rest  of  the  world.  It  is  true  that,  during 
the  last  thirty  years  and  particularly  during  the  last 
decade,  her  foreign  trade  has  developed  so  enormously 
as  to  invest  her  with  the  advantages  that  have  for  cen- 
turies been  peculiar  to  Great  Britain  ;  moreover,  the 
remarkable  current  of  German  emigration,  followed  by 
the  return  of  successful  colonists,  has  imported  the 
broadening  factor  of  British,  American  and  Latin 
civilisation.  In  times  to  come,  when  Germany  has 
developed  still  further,  when  her  population  of  sixty 
millions  has  doubled,  which  should  be  the  case  within 
half  a  century,  her  claim  to  be  representative  will  be 
undeniable,  more  especially  as  she  is  likely  to  alter  the 
map  of  Europe  not  only  to  the  detriment  of  her 
southern  neighbours,  but  also  to  that  of  the  West. 

In  the  present  state  of  things,  however,  though  the 
German  peril  may  loom  large  upon  the  horizon,  France 
remains  the  true  representative  of  the  West.  Her 
geographical  position  would   no  doubt  be   enough  to 

236 


France  among  the  Nations 

secure  this.  Cut  off,  on  the  south  and  on  the  south-east 
by  lofty  mountains,  she  has  been  able  to  develop  on 
lines  that  do  not  materially  differ  from  those  of  the 
North,  a  far  more  healthy  and  vigorous  evolution  than 
that  of  the  South  ;  her  coast-line  on  three  seas  has 
allowed  her  commerce  to  radiate  in  all  directions,  thus 
gathering  for  the  nation  impressions  that  have  made  it 
a  "  nation  of  the  world,"  in  the  same  sense  as  similar  in- 
tercourse with  his  fellows  makes  a  "  man  of  the  world." 
However  intolerant  French  governments  may  have 
been,  they  have  never  been  hostile  to  foreign  arts  and 
letters,  but  have  acclimatised  and  incorporated  them  for 
the  greater  benefit  of  the  race. 

Thus  France  has  at  the  same  time  enjoyed  some  of 
the  advantages  of  Great  Britain  and  all  those  of  a  con- 
tinental power;  on  her  north-eastern  frontier  she  has 
always  been  accessible  to  the  modifying  action  of  her 
neighbours  ;  on  her  southern  and  south-eastern  frontier 
her  natural  boundaries  have  long  protected  her  against 
weakening  infiltration.  On  the  other  hand,  her  immense 
coast-line  has  bred  in  her  people  the  spirit  of  adventure 
which  has  done  so  much  for  Great  Britain.  Thus 
France  has  always  been  before  other  important  nations 
in  the  gentle  arts  of  peace  ;  she  felt  the  Renaissance  at 
least  half  a  century  before  Great  Britain  did  and  was  a 
modern  power  when  her  eastern  neighbour  was  a 
congeries  of  petty  states  cowering  before  the  growing 
might  of  Prussia.  The  influence  of  mountains,  rivers 
and  seas  is  a  subtle  one  and  all  the  more  powerful  for 
that  reason  ;  in  the  case  of  France  it  is  more  obvious 
than  usual  because  geographical  features  are  in  her  case 
more  pronounced  than  in  that  of  many  other  nations. 

To  this,  therefore,  we  can  indirectly  trace  a  great  deal 

237 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  the  peculiar  glamour  that  attaches  to  the  Gallic  race  ; 
we  are  mostly  made  aware  of  it  through  the  medium  of 
consequent  features,  but  we  are  invariably  brought  back 
to  geography.  We  must  not  conclude  that  a  synthetic 
process  could  be  applied  and  that,  given  a  Frenchman 
or  even  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  soul  of  the  nation, 
we  could  reconstruct  the  country  by  a  series  of  deduc- 
tions. It  is  not  impossible  that  different  conditions 
might  have  produced  similar  results ;  inasmuch  as 
2  +  2  =  4  ^i^d  3  +  1=4,  any  other  nation  could 
theoretically  be  conceived  the  development  of  which 
would  have  been  identical  under  different  circumstances. 
But,  leaving  aside  such  speculations,  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that,  at  the  present  time,  France  stands  alone  as 
the  representative  of  Western  European  ideals  and  in 
this  finds  a  solid  base  for  the  status  that  is  hers  in  the 
world. 

This  status  being  acknowledged,  a  consequence  in- 
evitably follows  which  is  singular  because  it  is  at  the 
same  time  a  result  and  a  cause.  Centuries  of  influence 
have  at  all  times  conferred  upon  the  possessor  of  that 
influence  the  privilege  of  spreading  his  language,  if  not 
his  institutions  ;  conversely,  the  general  cultivation  of 
a  given  language  has  always  resulted  in  increased 
influence  for  the  land  from  which  it  originates.  This 
will  be  apparent  to  any  one  who  considers  the  status  of 
English  in  the  world  and  who  realises  how,  not  only 
the  scattered  parts  of  the  Empire,  but  countries  that 
separated  from  it  after  a  bloody  war  are  bound  together 
by  the  intangible  but  iron  link  of  a  common  language 
and  the  literature  that  is  born  of  it.  The  importance 
of  language  as  a  political  and  economic  influence  can 
be  more  easily  underrated  than  overestimated  ;  as  soon, 

238 


France  among  the  Nations 

however,  as  wc  consider  historical  fact,  its  importance  at 
once  becomes  obvious.  We  need  not  go  back  from  the 
present  day  to  examine  the  fierce  strife  which  was 
necessary  to  crush  out  French  in  Alsace  and  in  Lorraine, 
semi-French  as  the  former  province  may  have  been. 
Before  our  very  eyes  we  see  the  same  struggle  proceeding 
between  Polish  and  Danish  on  the  one  hand  and  German 
on  the  other ;  in  South  Africa  the  perpetual  conflict  of 
English  and  Dutch  persists  in  spite  of  the  conciliatory 
methods  of  the  British  government.  Erse  threatens  a 
revival  in  Ireland,  for  the  further  complication  of 
national  problems  ;  within  so  tiny  an  area  as  Switzer- 
land three  languages  are  energetic  rivals. 

This  enumeration  could  be  supplemented  ad  mjinitmn 
if  we  were  to  delve  ever  so  slightly  in  the  records  of 
history,  but  this  is  hardly  necessary,  as  the  above 
instances  are  decisive  enough  to  show  how  important  a 
factor  a  language  is.  To  French,  therefore,  we  can 
trace  at  once  much  of  the  influence  of  France  in  the 
world  and  a  portion  of  her  status  in  Europe,  It  is  not 
that  the  language  is  spoken  by  a  large  nation,  for  it  is 
not  hkely  that  the  French-speaking  peoples  of  the 
world  aggregate  much  more  than  fifty  million  persons ; 
if  v.'e  were  to  count  heads,  French  would  immediately 
be  eclipsed  by  English,  German,  Russian  and  Spanish. 
Foreign  influence  is  not  gained  so  much  from  the  bulk 
of  the  population  that  speaks  a  given  tongue  as  from 
the  number  of  foreigners  who  have  studied  it  for  busi- 
ness or  other  reasons.  It  is  in  this  respect  that  French 
dominates  any  but  the  English  language,  which  has 
gained  an  unassailable  position,  not  only  because  the 
peoples  that  can  boast  of  British  descent  are  numerous, 
but  because  Great  Britain,  being  the  first  in  the  field, 

239 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
has  captured  the  trade  of  the  world  and  rendered  it 
quasi  -  essential  that  a  merchant  should  understand 
English  or  engage  an  employee  conversant  with  its  use. 
This  is  fully  demonstrated  by  the  spread  of  the  study 
of  German  which  coincides,  year  for  year,  with  the 
development  of  Germany's  foreign  trade. 

No  student  of  English,  of  the  English  of  the  Bible, 
of  Addison,  of  Fielding,  will  deny  its  rather  sombre 
beauty,  its  suppleness  and  the  vastness  of  its  vocabu- 
lary ;  yet,  as  a  rule,  foreigners  do  not  study  English  for 
pleasure :  they  do  so  with  the  definite  object  of  using 
it  for  business  purposes.  English  has  no  great  literary 
renown  on  the  Continent,  not  because  it  has  the  reputa- 
tion of  being  an  uncouth  dialect,  but  because  its 
beauties  have  always  been  eclipsed  in  the  foreign 
mind  by  its  commercial  possibilities.  The  very  re- 
verse has  been  the  case  as  regards  French ;  its  study 
has  never  offered  great  pecuniary  attractions,  for  a 
knowledge  of  it  would  only  facilitate  intercourse  with 
a  comparatively  small  nation  confined  within  a  small 
country.  If  French  has  attained  its  present  status,  it 
is  because  France  was  first  in  the  field  of  literature 
and  thus  gained  the  position  that  English  won  in 
commerce. 

The  knowledge  of  French  is  an  accomplishment ; 
where  its  elegance  is  not  acknowledged  it  is  looked 
upon  as  an  essential  supplement  to  "  polite  "  education. 
Indeed,  in  the  case  of  educated  women  of  all  nations, 
the  study  of  French  has  become  at  least  equal  in 
importance  to  that  of  taste,  Shakespeare  and  the 
musical  glasses.  It  is  a  truism  to  say  that  French  is 
the  language  of  diplomacy  ;  this  is,  nowadays,  hardly  a 
fact,  but  it  still  to  a  certain  extent  holds  this  position  in 

240 


France  among  the  Nations 

virtue  of  its  conciseness  and  clearness  ;  here  again  we 
see  the  result  of  past  epochs  when  France  dominated 
the  politics  of  the  world.  It  is,  however,  far  more 
important  to  touch  the  people  than  to  touch  the 
ambassadors  ;  if  French  confined  its  sway  to  the  latter 
it  might  ultimately  be  supplanted  by  Volapuk  or 
Esperanto,  The  important  point  is  that  French  is 
used  as  a  medium  of  intercourse  by  the  educated 
classes  of  Europe  and  is  studied  in  their  schools.  The 
splendid  British  ignorance  of  foreign  languages  is  fast 
disappearing ;  on  the  Continent  such  a  state  of  things 
has  never  prevailed.  Practically  every  well-educated 
German  or  Russian  has  a  more  or  less  extensive  know- 
ledge of  the  French  language ;  in  certain  circles  of 
society,  particularly  in  Russia,  where  the  guests  are 
cosmopolitan,  it  serves  as  the  usual  medium  of  con- 
versation. Even  in  such  countries  as  Portugal  and 
Brazil  its  use  is  widespread  and,  day  by  day,  we  can  see 
among  our  immediate  acquaintances  a  growing  desire 
for  its  acquisition, 

I  do  not  want  to  make  a  molehill  into  a  mountain, 
but,  as  regards  the  matter,  one  is  far  too  much  inclined 
to  make  a  mountain  into  a  molehill.  The  dissemina- 
tion of  the  French  language  has  tended  in  an  extra- 
ordinary degree  to  the  reading  of  French  literature, 
which  has  been  the  means  of  spreading,  if  not  an 
accurate  impression  of  France,  at  least  French  ideas 
and  French  theories ;  the  movement  is  not  likely  to 
lose  its  efficacy,  for  a  language,  once  well  established, 
does  not  die  out :  Latin  and  Greek,  useless  as  they  may 
be  in  practice,  are  likely  to  survive  many  more  centuries 
of  unmitigated  mercantilism. 

To  these  causes,  then,  may  be  traced  the  peculiar 
R  241 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

position  of  France  in  Europe.  In  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  growth  of  neighbouring  giants  has  dwarfed 
the  nation  as  regards  bulk  and  muscular  power,  it  still 
enjoys  a  favoured  position.  Shorn  of  many  of  their 
colonial  possessions,  stagnant  as  regards  population, 
the  French  have  secured  for  themselves  a  "  place  in  the 
sun  "  as  they  aptly  put  it ;  free,  wealthy  and  liberal  in 
institutions,  France  remains  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  a 
centre  of  a  peculiar  nature.  She  may  not  be  the  land  of 
the  strongest,  but  she  can  hold  her  o\Yn  and  develop  on 
traditional  lines  the  arts  of  peace  and  the  cult  of  the 
beautiful ;  thus  she  cannot,  for  many  years  to  come, 
lose  a  status  that,  because  it  is  hers  by  merit,  is  hers  by 
right. 


242 


CHAPTER   XII 
THE    BIRTHRATE 

MEGALOMANIA  is  the  order  of  the  day; 
thousands  of  square  miles,  millions  of  people, 
hundreds  of  millions  of  trade  :  such  are  the  criteria  by 
which  we  judge  communities.  Borne  along  on  the 
wave  that  produces  the  more  unintelligent  forms  of 
Imperialism,  we  are  given  to  appreciating  quantity 
irrespective  of  quality  and  to  looking  upon  the  former 
as  all-sufficient  in  itself.  As  a  natural  result,  a  certain 
section  is  afflicted  with  micromania  and  is  unable  to 
conceive  of  matters  exceeding  in  importance  the  im- 
mediate affairs  of  their  district.  Neither  standard  is 
correct ;  the  very  fact  that  both  are  extreme  shows  that 
their  value  is  small :  extremes  have  a  permanent  place  in 
history-making,  but  only  as  the  leaven  which  produces 
antagonistic  reactions. 

The  criterion  of  size  has  been  applied  even  to  the 
question  of  population  ;  the  magnitude  of  the  latter 
impresses  us  even  when  we  try  to  resist  the  impression, 
and  it  is  with  a  sort  of  incredulous  amazement  that  we 
see  the  Russian  colossus  staggering  under  the  blows 
of  pigmy  Japan.  We  see  a  Belgium  or  a  Switzerland, 
where  the  average  trade  and  savings  per  head  compare 
favourably  with  those  of  the  British  Empire  or  the 
United   States,  and  yet  retain  a  vague  idea  that,  in 

343 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
some  way  or  another,  their  citizens  deserve  our  sym- 
pathy for  belonging  to  so  small  a  community. 

When  trade  is  booming  and  unemployment  rife,  when 
population  teems  and  yet  starves,  then,  in  our  opinion, 
the  State  is  on  its  way  to  power  and  greatness.  To 
those  who  subconsciously  harbour  these  views  I  would 
commend  the  Chinese  proverb  : — 

When  the  sword  is  rusted  and  the  sickle  glitters  ; 
When  bakers  go  on  horseback  and  doctors  go  afoot ; 
When  the  steps  of  the  schools  are  worn  out  and 
When  grass  grows  on  those  of  the  Courts  of  Law, 
Then  is  the  State  well  governed. 

The  Chinese  view  is,  no  doubt,  horribly  parochial,  but 
it  is  certainly  sound. 

Rightly  or  wrongly,  however,  the  popular  view  seems 
to  be  that  a  teeming  population  is  one  of  the  compo- 
nents of  national  greatness.  If  we  take  the  world  as 
we  find  it,  divided  into  nations,  we  are  reluctantly 
driven  to  the  conclusion  that  such  a  view  is  correct;  in 
itself  a  very  thick  population  is  not  an  unmixed  bless- 
ing ;  but,  if  we  consider  the  State,  it  is  obvious  that  its 
interests  are  best  served  by  a  large  preponderance  of 
births  over  deaths.  This  proceeds  from  one  cause  only, 
from  the  competition  that  prevails  over  the  whole  of  the 
world,  between  nations  as  well  as  between  classes  and 
individuals ;  the  large  and  vigorous  races  devour  the 
small  and  puny,  and  feel  that,  if  their  strength  increases, 
they  will  be  able  to  crush  out  rivals  who  are  still  for- 
midable. 

To  have  a  hundred  battleships  is  nothing  if  another 
nation  has  two  hundred  ;  so  we  naturally  arrive  at  a 
competition  in  armament  where  the  nation  whose  funds 
and  ambition  last  out  the  longest  secures  the  prepondcr- 

244 


The  Birthrate 

ance ;  in  the  same  manner,  increasing  population  means 
growing  influence,  because  the  armed  hosts  become  more 
numerous  and  thriving  industries  attract  gold  to  the 
land.  When  two  neighbouring  nations  follow  different 
roads,  when  the  one  sees  every  day  its  citizens  multiply- 
ing, its  exchequer  receipts  swelling,  its  trade  increasing, 
whilst  the  other  remains  stagnant,  the  more  vigorous 
organism  must  eventually  kill  off  the  weaker  one,  in  this 
case,  either  by  right  of  conquest  or  by  slow  absorption. 
The  birthrate  is  a  test  of  national  competition ;  so 
long  as  nations  continue  to  exist  as  hostile  groupings, 
armed  to  the  teeth  and  perfecting  their  weapons  in  the 
intervals  of  Hague  Conferences,  so  long  will  its  con- 
tinual increase  be  a  condition  of  national  security  and 
power.  "  Every  year,"  said  von  Moltke  in  this  con- 
nection, "we  win  a  battle  against  France."  The  right- 
hand  man  of  Bismarck  spoke  truly  there,  knowing  as 
he  did  that  every  new  birth  meant  an  accession  of 
strength  to  his  country  and  that  its  weight  must  event- 
ually tell.  From  the  national  point  of  view  it  hardly 
matters  whether  the  country  can  feed  its  citizens  or 
not;  if  the  limits  of  its  productive  capacity  are  over- 
stepped it  can  either  permeate  and  eventually  enslave 
or  annex  the  neighbouring  state,  or  it  can  found  power- 
ful colonies  whose  influence  will  be  cast  into  the  balance 
in  favour  of  the  mother  country.  From  the  national 
or  political  point  of  view,  therefore,  we  are  compelled 
to  admit  that  the  fearful  strain  must  continue,  that  ever 
more  hungry  mouths  must  be  fed,  just  as  we  must  be 
ready  to  give  of  our  blood  and  treasure  more  and  yet 
more.  Such  are  the  terms  on  which  national  existence 
can  be  secured  ;  the  Socialist  looks  upon  their  accept- 
ance as  monstrous  folly,  the  Imperialist  as  something 

245 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

perfectly  normal.  Constructively,  the  Socialist  pro- 
poses to  break  down  national  barriers,  whilst  the  Im- 
perialist trusts  to  nature  to  regulate  our  numbers  ;  time 
alone  will  show  whose  theory  is  sound  :  it  need  not  be 
decided  now,  as  the  law  of  Malthus  does  not  yet  apply 
to  the  earth.  Our  problem  is  not  to  feed  our  men  and 
women,  but  to  distribute  them  over  the  whole  of  the 
universe ;  yet  a  thought  may  well  be  given  to  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  of  our  ever-increasing  numbers. 

Even  from  the  national  point  of  view,  however,  a 
large  population  is  not  an  unmixed  blessing.  Past  a 
certain  point  emigration  becomes  a  factor  of  national 
life,  and  political  problems  of  the  gravest  nature  arise : 
conflicts  with  neighbouring  countries,  jealousies,  isola- 
tion spring  from  it ;  colonies  forget  their  allegiance, 
rise  up  in  arms  or  conduct  tariff  wars  against  the 
mother  country ;  political  anxiety  grows  with  the 
people,  and  their  war  expenditure  increases  in  a  still 
greater  ratio.  But  it  is  not  nationally  speaking  that 
truly  serious  problems  come  into  being ;  the  perils  that 
follow  in  the  train  of  a  growing  birthrate  are  not 
usually  political ;  a  large  excess  of  births  means  abun- 
dant labour  (and  as  a  result  growing  capital)  and  large 
armies  which,  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  mean 
political  health  for  the  State.  The  evils  that  arise 
from  it  are  not  political  but  social ;  if  we  distinguish 
between  "  political"  as  affecting  the  State  and  "social'' 
as  affecting  the  individual,  we  are  at  once  able  to  draw 
fine  distinctions  and  our  point  of  view  may  change. 

Roughly  speaking,  that  which  is  good  for  the  indi- 
vidual is  good  for  the  State,  but  it  is  not  true  that  that 
which  is  good  for  the  State  is  good  for  the  individual ; 
we  have  arrived   above  at  the  conclusion  that  a  high 

246 


The  Birthrate 

birthrate  is  essential  if  the  State  is  to  flourish,  even  to 
survive,  but  if  we  consider  man  apart  from  the  nation, 
as  a  citizen  of  the  world,  our  conclusion  is  modified  and 
we  even  arrive  at  a  diametrically  opposite  opinion. 
Socially  speaking,  we  must  distinguish  between  coun- 
tries ;  there  is  no  general  application  of  the  social  laws, 
as  their  incidence  is  falsified  because  of  the  non-social 
conditions  of  the  world.  If  population  were  distributed 
in  exact  ratio  to  the  local  productivity  of  the  soil,  social 
laws  would  be  everywhere  applicable  and  assertions 
would  need  no  qualification.  Such  is,  however,  not  the 
case ;  we  find  extraordinary  differences  in  density, 
varying  between  one  man  to  the  square  mile  and  thou- 
sands to  the  square  acre  ;  moreover,  the  towns  have 
everywhere  a  tendency  to  grow  and  the  rural  districts  to 
suffer  from  emigration.  For  these  reasons,  it  is  not  easy 
to  make  sweeping  statements,  and  it  becomes  necessary 
to  distinguish  between  "  new"  and  "  old  "  countries.  In 
"  new  "  countries — i.e.  countries  sparsely  populated,  such 
as  Canada,  Siberia,  Brazil,  etc. — the  problem  of  popula- 
tion does  not  affect  the  individual  adversely  from  the 
social  point  of  view ;  however  large  his  family  may  be, 
land  and  employment  are  easily  available  and,  in  fact, 
large  families  mean  comfort  and  content  for  the  elder 
generation.  The  parents  can  count  on  a  measure  of 
support  from  their  children ;  the  family  becomes  a 
powerful  unit  of  which  the  clan  is  the  perfect  type,  and 
its  size  makes  as  much  for  its  private  prosperity  as  for 
that  of  the  nation  that  claims  its  allegiance. 

But  it  is  not  with  such  countries  that  we  are  con- 
cerned, for  France  is  an  "  old  "  country,  old  in  the  ordi- 
nary sense  of  "  having  for  many  years  been  affected  by 
civilisation  "  and  also  as  regards  the  density  of  her  popu- 

247 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

lation.  In  this  case  the  social  law  militates  in  a  different 
direction  ;  it  is  no  longer  in  the  interest  of  the  individual 
to  have  a  large  family  because  it  does  not  readily  find 
employment  or  acquire  wealth,  but  only  increases  his 
burdens.  An  ever-increasing  population,  however 
advantageous  it  may  be  for  the  State,  only  means  a 
lower  standard  of  living  for_  the  individual,  ceaseless 
exertion  to  feed  those  whom  he  has  brought  into  the 
world,  with  the  prospect  of  sentencing  his  children  to  a 
struggle  yet  more  acute. 

I  cannot  discover  any  moral  reason  for  the  breeding 
of  men  beyortd  a  certain  point ;  should  that  "  certain 
point "  be  attained  in  the  opinion  of  the  sociologist,  it  is 
likely  that  doctrinaire  moralists  and  theologians  would, 
as  bitterly  as  ever,  contend  that  more  men  should  be 
allowed  to  come  and  make  still  harder  our  struggle  for 
life.  It  is,  however,  not  very  likely  that  this  question 
will  be  put  to  the  test,  for,  by  a  singular  and  merciful  law 
of  nature,  fecundity  decreases  among  the  peoples  of  the 
earth  at  a  rate  that  compares  with  their  increasing  civil- 
isation. Other  factors  than  diminishing  fecundity  are, 
of  course,  also  at  work,  but  their  presence  is  also  trace- 
able to  civilisation.  Moralists  call  this  "  selfishness," 
but  the  most  ferocious  denunciations  come,  as  a  rule, 
from  celibate  priests  and  should  not  disturb  our  minds. 
At  the  present  time,  high  birthrates  are  confined  to  the 
lower  races ;  it  is  highest  among  the  Bantus  and  the 
Mongols,  healthy  in  body  but  undeveloped  in  mind  ;  it 
is  lowest  among  Europeans,  whose  civilisation  is  more 
advanced  and,  among  them,  it  is  clear  that  the  birthrate 
of  the  nations  of  the  West,  whose  intellectual  develop- 
ment is  the  more  notable,  is  lower  than  that  of  the 
ignorant  East. 

In  no  European  country  is  this  state  of  things  so 

248 


The  Birthrate 

pronounced  as  in  France ;  it  need  not,  therefore,  be 
inferred  that  she  stands  at  the  head  of  civilised  nations, 
but  this  is  not  impossible.  I  do  not  want  to  compare 
the  cultured  Englishman,  German  or  Russian  unfavour- 
ably with  the  Frenchman  of  equal  attainments,  as  cul- 
ture creates  an  international  class,  but  if  we  take  the 
nation  as  a  whole  and  include  the  lowest  classes,  it  can 
be  contended  that  the  culture  line  includes  a  greater 
proportion  of  the  French  race  than  of  any  other  people. 
It  is  such  a  peculiar  fact  that  fertility  and  the  liking 
for  large  families  decreases  as  civilisation  increases,  that 
of  late  years  we  have  seen  the  birthrate  shrink  in  Great 
Britain  in  an  automatic  fashion.  In  France  there  is 
practically  an  equilibrium  between  births  and  deaths  ; 
the  manner  in  which  this  has  been  attained  will  be  more 
fully  referred  to  :  meanwhile  the  following  tables  will 
prove  instructive  : — 

Population  of  France, 


1700 

19,660,320 

I80I 

•  27,349,003 

I82I 

.  30.461,873 

I83I 

32,569,283 

I84I 

34,230,178 

1856 

36,039,364 

I86I 

37,386,313 

1866 

38,067,064 

1872 

36,102,921 

i88i 

37,672,048 

1886 

38,218,903 

1891 

38,342,948 

1896 

38,517,975 

1901 

38,961,945 

1905 

39,300,000  (estimated) 

1906 

39,400,000 

1907   , 

39,500,000     „ 

249 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

The  numbers  before  1872  do  not  compare  very  well 
with  the  figures  for  that  year  and  for  those  that  follow, 
Owing  to  the  loss  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  but  the  earlier 
ones  are  rather  of  academic  interest  and  our  attention 
need  be  given  only  to  the  last  thirty-five  years. 

The  following  schedule  of  Births  and  Deaths  is  also 
of  considerable  value : — 


Year. 

Births. 

Deaths. 

1894  .    .    .  855,388   .. 

815,620 

1895 

834,173   •• 

851,986 

1896 

865,506   .. 

771,886 

1897 

859,107   .. 

751,019 

1898 

843,933   •■ 

810,073 

1899 

847,627   .. 

816,233 

1900 

827,297   .. 

853,285 

1901 

857,274   .. 

784,870 

1902 

845,378   .. 

761,434 

1903 

826,712   .. 

753,606 

1904 

818,229 

761,203 

1905 

807,292   .. 

770,171 

1906 

806,847   •• 

780,796 

These  figures  do  not  include  still  births,  which  in 
France  average  39,000  a  year,  or  under  5  per  cent. 
This  figure  is  rather  high  for  European  countries,  for 
the  rate  is  4  per  cent  in  the  Netherlands,  3  per  cent  in 
Austria  and  Germany  and  2  per  cent  in  Hungary.  It 
is,  however,  about  equal  to  the  Belgian  and  the  Italian 
rate. 

These  two  foregoing  tables,  placed  in  juxtaposition, 
form  a  most  suggestive  array  of  figures,  and  allow  of 
conclusions  being  drawn  with  great  ease ;  it  appears, 
however,  necessary  to  emphasise  a  few  points,  par- 
ticularly by  means  of  averages  which  these  totals  do 

250 


The  Birthrate 

not  include,  though  they  constitute  a  fairer  basis  to 
work  upon, 

If  we  consider  these  last  thirteen  years,  which  coin- 
cide roughly  with  an  extreme  development  of  advanced 
thought,  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the  shrinkage  that 
has  taken  place  in  births  ;  within  thirteen  years  it  was 
no  less  than  48,500  per  annum,  and  it  is  noteworthy 
that,  after  a  period  of  recovery,  the  fall  began  again 
in  1900  and  has  continued  ever  since,  so  much  so  that 
the  births  in  1906  were  over  50,000  short  of  the  total 
for  1901.  From  the  national  point  of  view  these  figures 
are  alarming,  but,  before  giving  way  to  pessimism,  the 
often  omitted  factor  of  the  deathrate  must  be  taken 
into  account.  In  1894  it  is  true  that  the  births 
numbered  48,500  more  than  in  1906,  but  deaths 
numbered  35,000  more  :  it  appears  from  this  that  the 
remarkable  superiority  of  1894  is  reduced  to  a  differ- 
ence of  13,000,  not  a  very  important  matter;  if,  how- 
ever, we  consider  the  last  six  years  (i 900-1 906)  we  have 
more  grounds  for  anxiety,  for  births  shrink  by  over 
50,000  during  the  period,  whilst  deaths  only  decrease 
by  4,000,  leaving  a  net  comparison  loss  of  46,000. 

As  regards  this  particular  period,  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that,  whereas  the  births  have  decreased  regularly, 
deaths  have  fluctuated  considerably.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  it  appears  fairer  to  average  the  period  1 894- 
1906,  reserving  of  course  the  conclusions  that  may  be 
formed  after  considering  the  last  five  or  six  years.  The 
average  births  per  annum  during  these  thirteen  years 
numbered  837,000  and  the  average  deaths  790,000;  it 
is  therefore  premature  to  cry  out  on  the  plea  that  France 
is  a  dying  nation,  for  an  annual  increase  of  47,000  in  her 
population  is  worth  taking  into  account.     The  reserved 

251 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

conclusions  are,  however,  damnatory  ;  the  period  1900- 
1906  shows  a  steady  and  considerable  decrease  in  births 
and  there  is  every  prospect  that  it  will  continue.  If  we 
consider  the  whole  period  we  find  after  every  bumper 
year  a  period  of  depression,  then  another  good  year  not 
so  good  as  the  bumper  year,  then  another  depression  and 
a  slight  recovery:  thus  1901  marks  a  recovery,  but  it 
falls  far  short  of  1896.  It  is  practically  certain  that 
either  1907  or  1908  will  show  a  slight  increase,  but  after 
this  the  fall  will  be  resumed. 

These  facts  are  particularly  striking  when  we  consider 
the  deaths  over  the  same  period  ;  they  fluctuate  to  such 
an  extent  that  we  can  only  arrive  at  one  conclusion, 
viz. :  that  the  automatic  decrease  in  deaths  has  stopped. 
The  advance  in  medical  science,  hygiene  and  the 
increasing  use  of  sanatoria  have  contributed  enormously 
during  the  last  decade  to  the  reduction  of  the  death- 
rate,  but  they  have  their  limitations.  It  should  be  noted 
that  deaths  must  not  be  compared  absolutely  with 
births,  for  they  also  include  the  considerable  number  of 
adult  and  diseased  foreigners  who,  every  year,  settle  in 
France.  For  instance,  if  we  compare  1896  and  1905 
we  find  the  total  deaths  about  equal,  but  the  1905  figure 
refers  to  a  population  greater  by  about  800,000,  so  that 
the  deathrate  shows  a  reduction. 

The  deathrate  is  the  crux  of  the  question  ;  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  birthrate  is  shrinking  and  that,  for 
the  last  three  years,  it  has  been  below  the  average  for 
the  last  twelve,  nor  can  it  be  expected  to  recover  to  any 
notable  extent ;  thus  if  the  population  of  France  is  to 
increase,  it  will  not  be  owing  to  more  numerous  births. 
A  further  reduction  in  the  deathrate  may  of  course  take 
place ;    there   is   no   theoretical   reason    why   common 

252 


The  Birthrate 

knowledge  of  hygiene,  national  sobriety  and  improved 
housing  should  not  considerably  extend  life,  but  in  prac- 
tice I  fear  that  the  ever-growing  industrial  activities  of 
France  will  not  make  for  longer  lives.  With  the  present 
population  of  the  country  it  is  not  likely  that  deaths  can 
be  brought  much  below  750,000  per  annum,  as  against 
an  average  of  790,000  in  the  last  thirteen  years.  It 
should  be  said  that  it  does  not  appear  entirely  desirable 
that  life  should  be  prolonged  beyond  a  certain  point ; 
the  schools  that  suggest  the  lethal  chamber  at  the  age 
of  sixty,  or  even  forty,  are  no  doubt  going  too  far,  but 
it  is  obvious  that  a  nation  which  kept  up  its  numbers, 
not  by  the  accession  of  healthy  children  but  by  raising 
the  age  of  its  citizens  to  a  patriarchal  degree,  would  not 
be  in  a  position  to  compete  with  other  and  more  vigor- 
ous races. 

The  foregoing  appears  to  land  us  in  an  impasse  ;  it 
is  true  that  in  1906  births  exceeded  deaths  by  26,000, 
but  it  is  also  true  that 

in  1901  the  excess  was  73,000 
„  1902         „        „  84,000 

„  1903        „        ,>         73>ooo 
„  1904        „        „  57>ooo 

„  1905  »  »  37.000 
so  that  the  gain  has  been  almost  regularly  smaller  ;  we 
can  reasonably  conclude  that,  within  a  few  years,  the 
difference  will  no  longer  be  in  favour  of  births  and  that 
the  population  will  decrease.  That  this  has,  however, 
not  formerly  been  the  case  can  be  inferred  from  the 
table  giving  the  population  of  France,  the  figures  of 
which  are  as  reasonably  applicable  to  the  future  as  those 
of  the  second  table.  If  we  select  in  the  first  table  the 
year  1896  (simply  because  it  is  a  census  year  and  for  no 

253 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
other  reason)  and  compare  it  with  the  estimate  for  1905 
(39.300,000),  we  find  that  the  population  of  France  has 
increased  by  783,000  during  the  decade  ;  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  examine  the  table  of  births  and  deaths,  we  find 
that  the  increase  should  only  be  564,000.  The  dis- 
crepancy is  explained  by  the  fact  that  foreigners 
immigrate  into  France  at  the  average  rate  of  22,000 
per  annum  and  that,  therefore,  during  the  decade  under 
examination,  France  gained  some  220,000  new  in- 
habitants, most  of  whom  naturalise,  marry  and  are 
merged  into  the  French  race. 

France  has,  for  many  years,  been  an  attractive  field 
for  the  emigrant,  so  much  so  that,  at  the  present  time, 
about  1,050,000  foreigners  are  registered  as  settled, 
or  27  per  cent  of  the  total  population.  Immigration  is 
the  saving  of  France  as  it  has  been  the  making  of  the 
United  States  and  other  American  nations ;  it  will 
continue  and  increase  with  opportunity.  I  do  not 
contend  that,  nationally  speaking,  this  is  altogether 
desirable,  but,  on  the  whole,  the  immigration  of  Belgians 
and  Italians  (two-thirds  of  the  total)  does  not  mean 
invasion  by  alien  races,  but  by  men  who  are  akin  to  the 
French  as  regards  origin,  religion,  language  and  customs  ; 
this  immigration  is  not  to  be  compared  with  that  of  the 
Poles  and  Jews  into  Great  Britain,  because  those  races 
are  not  readily  assimilated,  whereas  the  Belgians  and 
the  Italians,  being  Latins,  are  absorbed  at  once  by 
the  French  race. 

It  is  therefore  on  immigration  that  French  hopes  must 
be  based  ;  admitting  that  there  is  no  likelihood  of  a 
reaction  against  a  low  birthrate,  the  praiseworthy  efforts 
of  M.  Piot  must  be  sterile.  Indeed,  it  is  practically 
certain  that  the  habits  of  life  and  the  marriage  customs 

254 


The  Birthrate 

of  the  French,  if  persisted  in,  tend  to  a  further  reduction 
in  births.  Is  it  necessary  to  say  that  regimes  and 
religions  may  fall,  but  that  customs  and  habits  remain 
untouched?  It  is  possible  to  imagine  another  political 
revolution  in  France,  but  that  the  habits  of  families 
should  be  cast  into  the  melting-pot  oversteps  the  bounds 
of  the  most  optimistic  credulity. 

At  the  root  of  a  falling  birthrate,  among  civilised 
nations,  lies  in  the  first  place  a  decrease  in  fertility ;  a 
highly  interesting  report  on  the  subject  v^as  issued 
in  1906  by  Mr.  David  Heron  with  reference  to  the 
United  Kingdom,  and  followed  by  articles  by  Mr. 
Sidney  Webb,  Sir  James  Crichtcn  Browne,  etc.,  all 
tending  to  show  that  this  is  inevitably  the  case.  That 
which  is  happening  in  Great  Britain  occurs  to  a  greater 
extent  in  France;  the  fecundity  of  the  nation  has 
suffered,  apparently  in  direct  ratio  to  the  development 
of  its  civilisation.  Whereas,  however,  in  Great  Britain, 
the  birthrate  still  exceeds  the  deathrate  by  nine  to  ten  per 
thousand,  in  France  the  two  are  practically  equal ;  I  do 
not,  for  this  reason,  maintain  that  France  enjoys  in  every 
way  a  higher  standard  of  civilisation,  but  it  is  at  least 
singular  that  we  should  witness  the  phenomenon  in  its 
most  pronounced  form  in  the  Western  nations,  France, 
Great  Britain  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  Germany. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  French,  particularly  the 
townsmen,  are  no  longer  a  sturdy  race ;  their  physique 
is  not  good,  nor  is  their  general  health  particularly 
satisfactory,  the  male  sex  being  the  more  affected.  The 
morality  of  the  Frenchman  is  far  from  being  as  lax  as 
it  is  believed,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is,  on  the 
whole,  less  rigid  than  that  of  the  Englishman  ;  it  is  not 
certain  that  this  state  of  things  affects  national  fertility, 

255 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

for  Germany  still  boasts  of  a  very  high  birthrate  in 
spite  of  morals  which  do  not,  in  any  appreciable  degree, 
differ  from  those  of  France.  It  is  possible  that  late 
marriages,  which  have  long  been  customary  among  the 
middle  classes  in  France,  are  at  the  root  of  the  question, 
but  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  strong  reaction 
against  the  practice  has  set  in,  which  may  ultimately 
affect  the  question  to  an  important  degree.  It  is  also 
evident  that  French  physique  is  being  much  improved 
by  compulsory  military  service  and  by  the  increasing 
popularity  of  athletics,  so  that  here  again  we  find 
grounds  for  believing  that  national  fertility  may  in- 
crease to  a  notable  extent. 

There  is,  however,  another  aspect  of  the  question 
which  the  learned  observers,  to  whose  researches  refer- 
ence has  been  made,  seem  to  have  lost  sight  of  Their 
blindness  must  be  apparent  rather  than  real,  perhaps 
even  assumed,  for  experience  must  have  shown  them 
that  other  factors  besides  fertility  influence  the  birth- 
rate in  Western  Europe.  Whether  they  feared  to  enter 
upon  a  thorny  subject  likely  to  offend  the  somewhat 
prudish  ears  of  the  public,  I  do  not  pretend  to  say,  but 
it  is  to  be  noted  that  Dr.  Ingram,  the  Bishop  of  London, 
alone  has  spoken  frankly  and  fearlessly  on  the  far  more 
important  subject  of  the  wilful  restriction  of  the  birth- 
rate. 

That  is,  in  France,  the  crux  of  the  question.  The 
French  do  not  admit  that  they  are  in  any  way  bound  to 
bring  into  the  world  families  which  they  cannot  hope 
to  rear  and  educate  successfully.  I  do  not  intend  to 
enter  upon  the  discussion  of  a  subject  which  involves 
moral  and  religious  issues  ;  it  is  certain  that  there  is 
a  great  deal  of  claptrap  in  the  anti-malthusian  theory 

256 


The  Birthrate 

and  that  much  bombastic  rhetoric  has  been  indulged  in 
by  those  who  believe  that  ever-growing  population 
makes  for  the  happiness  of  the  world. 

There  are  in  France,  as  in  most  other  countries, 
individuals  who  prefer  to  devote  their  energies  to 
preaching'  in  favour  of  a  high  birthrate,  rather  than 
to  tariff  reform,  anti-vivisection,  temperance,  etc.,  but 
they  do  not  at  present  seem  likely  to  provoke  a  social 
revolution.  The  French  race  deliberately  restricts  the 
birthrate.  If  we  leave  aside  the  more  ignorant  sections 
of  the  population,  who  remain  too  careless  to  concern 
themselves  with  the  question,  we  find  it  notorious  that 
families  are  artificially  restricted.  Public  opinion  not 
only  acquiesces  in  the  practice,  but  it  has  a  tendency  to 
scoff  at  big  families  and  to  look  upon  their  parents  as 
devoid  of  common  sense.  Among  the  middle  classes, 
taking  the  word  in  its  widest  sense,  three  children  are 
looked  upon  as  a  large  family,  two  as  more  than  enough 
and  one  as  the  rule,  childless  families  being  more 
numerous  than  in  any  part  of  the  world.  The  figures 
of  the  last  census  yield  most  suggestive  figures  in  this 
connection  ;  one  family  out  of  two  has  two  children  or 
less,  and  in  fifty-five  per  cent  of  these  cases  there  is  but 
one  child,  whilst  no  less  then  seventeen  per  cent  of  French 
families  are  childless.  These  figures,  particularly  the  last, 
are  amazing  ;  one  million  eight  hundred  thousand  couples 
are  zvithout  offspring,  and  past  records  show  that  this 
state  of  things  has  prevailed  for  many  years. 

The  middle  classes  are  not  alone  affected  ;  restric- 
tion prevails  among  the  peasantry,  whose  frugality  and 
foresight  lead  them  to  understand  that  their  beloved 
fields  can  only  escape  indefinite  partition  if  their 
families  are  small.  Thus  the  working  class  alone 
s  257 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
remains  and  the  more  enlightened  sections  are  follow- 
ing the  movement,  so  that  increase  takes  place  ex- 
clusively among  the  less  desirable  classes.  The  more 
degraded,  the  poorer,  the  more  ignorant  the  class,  the 
higher  its  birthrate ;  such  is  the  state  of  things  in  Great 
Britain  as  in  France,  with  the  result  that,  in  both 
countries,  the  State  would  be  swamped  with  those 
whose  heredity  is  poor  if  infantile  mortality  did  not 
redress  the  balance.  The  degraded  classes  have  a  high 
birthrate  but  also  a  high  deathrate ;  this  is  a  cruel 
law  which  Nature  applies  automatically  so  that,  if  we 
succeed  in  improving  the  lot  of  the  submerged  tenth, 
as  soon  as  their  offspring  become  desirable  their  death- 
rate  will  decrease  in  proportion. 

This  state  of  things  prevails  in  France  to  a  lesser 
degree  than  in  Great  Britain,  because  the  poverty  line 
does  not  include  such  a  large  proportion  of  the  popula- 
tion. There  are  no  reliable  statistics  that  would  enable 
us  to  institute  a  comparison  with  those  of  Mr.  Charles 
Booth,  but  it  is  quite  certain  (obvious  to  the  observer) 
that  there  is  in  France  no  question  of  "  thirteen  millions 
on  the  verge  of  starvation  "  ;  thus  there  is  no  reason  to 
expect  a  plethora  of  undesirables  in  France. 

If  we  take  a  general  view  of  the  foregoing  statements, 
we  are  induced  to  ask  ourselves  what  are  the  results  of 
this  peculiar  state  of  things.  As  is  the  case  with 
national  questions,  they  are  of  a  twofold  nature,  politi- 
cal and  social.  The  general  political  considerations 
that  have  already  been  enunciated  apply  to  France  in 
every  respect,  but  there  are  two  special  directions  in 
which  the  low  birthrate  affects  the  political  status  of 
the  country :  the  colonies  and  the  German  peril. 

As  has  been  said  in  another  chapter,  French  colonies 

258 


The  Birthrate 

are  in  a  parlous  condition  and  it  is  quite  clear  that  they 
cannot  flourish  unless  white  settlers  are  forthcoming. 
So  long  as  the  birthrate  ren^ains  low,  the  individual 
will  not  be  forced  out  of  his  own  country  and  the 
colonies  will  remain  empty ;  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  formation  of  colonies  is  purely  a  political 
question  and  that  a  thing  may  be  socially  excellent 
though  politically  detestable.  Thus  the  French  Govern- 
ment may  well  deplore  the  state  of  things,  however 
satisfactory  it  may  appear  to  the  citizen.  None  but  the 
most  ambitious  members  of  the  population  turn  towards 
the  colonies ;  only  a  small  proportion  gives  way  to  the 
wanderlust  or  to  a  desire  for  adventure,  so  small  as  to 
be  a  negligible  factor.  Where  peoples  have  emigrated 
in  large  numbers  we  always  find  a  compelling  force, 
sometimes  persecution,  political  or  religious,  but  nearly 
always  sheer  necessity.  The  Germans  emigrated  in 
great  numbers  owing  to  overcrowding  and  because  their 
industry  was  ill-organised  ;  the  English,  Scotch  and 
Irish,  either  because  their  land  system  was  bad  or  the 
land  itself  barren  ;  Italian  emigration  is  due  to  poverty  ; 
Belgian  and  Swiss  emigration  to  overcrowding. 

In  France  there  is  no  overcrowding  and,  in  most 
classes,  comfort  prevails  ;  thus  there  is  no  driving  power 
and  the  population  is  content  to  remain,  as  a  result  of 
which  the  colonies  have  fallen  more  and  more  into  the 
hands  of  the  foreigner  and  are  nothing  but  an  incubus. 
From  a  political  point  of  view  this  is  a  misfortune,  but 
it  shrinks  into  insignificance  by  the  side  of  the  German 
peril.  Alarmism  is  detestable  and  I  do  not  intend  to 
ascribe  sinister  motives  to  Germany,  but  over  and 
above  German  Imperialism  we  have  to  face  physical 
facts.     The  area  of  Germany  is  about  the  same  as  that 

259 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  France  and  its  population  exceeds  that  of  its  west- 
ern neighbour  by  over  fifty  per  cent ;  it  is  not  likely  that 
German  soil  has  reached  the  limit  of  its  productivity, 
but  it  must  eventually  do  so  if  the  Empire  continues 
to  gain  its  annual  million  of  citizens.  Expansion  is 
already  necessary,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the  perpetual 
friction  between  Germany  and  other  nations ;  devoid  of 
colonies  as  an  outlet,  rich,  powerful  and  growing,  is  it 
conceivable  that  Germany  will  bear  indefinitely  the 
pressure  from  within  of  her  million  citizens? 

France  is  the  natural  outlet,  not  only  because  she  is 
the  Erbfeind,  the  hereditary  enemy,  but  because  her  fair 
fields  lie  on  the  western  side  of  Germany ;  some  inscru- 
table ethnic  law  directs  the  march  of  nations  towards 
the  West  and  it  is  not  likely  to  be  proved  incorrect  in 
this  case.  I  do  not  contend  with  the  professional  alarm- 
ist that  Germany  wants  war,  but  it  appears  inevitable 
and,  in  that  case,  France  must  be  her  obvious  quarry. 
A  Germany  with  sixty  millions  of  inhabitants  is  already 
a  world  factor  ;  will  a  Germany  with  a  hundred  millions 
of  citizens  content  herself  with  her  limited  acres  ? 

The  German  peril  is,  for  France,  a  very  real  thing ;  to 
prophesy  in  matters  political  is  always  dangerous,  but 
the  outlook  for  France  is  not  altogether  reassuring  in 
this  direction.  Her  army  will  never  exceed  in  efficiency 
the  trained  German  legions,^  and  the  disparity  in  reserves 
which  already  exists  is  increasing  every  day  ;  should  the 
French  birthrate  shrink  still  further,  the  political  diffi- 
culty will  assume  a  still  more  threatening  aspect.     The 

^  A  year's  service  in  a  French  regiment  has  fully  convinced  me  that  the 
dislike  with  which  most  of  the  privates  fulfil  their  military  obligations  does 
not  tend  to  promote  their  efficiency  ;  stringent  methods,  such  as  those 
which  are  applied  in  Germany,  are  unsuited  to  a  hot-blooded  race.  — W.  L.  G . 

260 


The  Birthrate 

problem  of  the  landed  rich,  scattered  among  the  toiling 
landless  millions,  is  comparable  with  the  situation  ot 
these  two  neighbouring  races  ;  in  both  cases  force  must 
play  a  part  and  the  struggle  is  not  likely  to  be  more 
merciful  when  two  strong  and  ambitious  races  are  at 
grips  than  when  the  wealthy  find  it  necessary  to  defend 
their  property  against  the  ever  more  menacing  State. 

Dark  as  is  the  political  outlook,  the  social  state  of 
things  is  in  France  excellent.  Her  population  seems  to 
have  arrived  roughly  at  a  state  of  equipoise  between  the 
mouths  to  be  fed  and  the  area  that  is  to  bear  the 
burden  ;  if  we  admit  the  fertility  of  the  United  King- 
dom to  be  equal  to  that  of  France,  a  premise  that  the 
agronome  may  not  accept,  we  find  that  the  population 
of  France  is  190  to  the  square  mile  as  compared  with 
347  in  Great  Britain.  If  we  make  every  allowance  for 
imported  foodstuffs  on  the  one  hand  and  for  the  waste 
of  arable  land  in  the  United  Kingdom  on  the  other,  we 
are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  population  is,  in 
France,  comparatively  sparse.  Thus  the  French  are 
enabled  to  live  in  a  state  of  comfort  unknown  to  the 
working  classes  in  this  country,  taking  the  term  in  its 
broadest  sense,  and  to  practise  thrift  as  a  matter  of 
course.  For  every  adult  who  dies  a  child  survives  who, 
in  course  of  time,  automatically  replaces  him  and 
enjoys  the  use  of  his  goods  or  his  occupation  ;  there  is 
no  overcrowding,  no  desperate  need  for  seeking  open- 
ings, no  pressure  to  create  new  resources.  This  may  be 
politically  execrable,  but  it  is  socially  excellent  as  it 
makes  for  the  happiness  of  the  individual. 

Unemployment  exists  in  France  as  in  other  European 
countries,  but  to  a  lesser  degree,  partly  because  half  the 
people  are  settled  on  the  land,  but  especially  because 

261 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
there  is  no  plethora  of  labour;  in  every  case,  what  un- 
employment there  is  proceeds  either  from  a  too  rapid 
migration  towards  an  industrial  centre  or  from  a  local 
crisis. 

Small  population  makes  for  personal  comfort.  The 
struggle  for  life  is  not  too  intense  in  France  and  allows 
the  people  to  enjoy  the  good  things  of  this  world  that 
more  imperial  states  deny  to  their  citizens  ;  this  makes 
for  the  solidity  and  stability  of  families  and  ensures  the 
child  the  maximum  of  care,  education  and  capital,  that 
its  parents  can  give.  It  is  in  great  part  owing  to  her 
low  birthrate  that  France  is  probably  one  of  the  most 
prosperous  countries  in  the  world  and  that  her  ^  gold 
reserves  per  head  exceed  the  known  averages  of  other 
European  nations.  The  grinding  poverty  of  our  indus- 
trial population"  is  unknown  in  France ;  other  factors, 
such  as  temperance  and  thrift,  come  into  consideration, 
but  the  small  size  of  the  population  makes  for  fair 
wages  and  fair  rents.  In  this  connection  it  should  be 
noted  that  the  terrible  housing  difficulties  of  British 
cities  are  practically  unknown  in  France.  This  is  partly 
due  to  the  fact  that  there  are  no  large  estates  in  the 
towns  and  that  keen  competition  keeps  the  rents  down, 
but  the  overcrowding  peril  is  not  in  France  the  seven- 
headed  hydra  that  we  know  in  this  country.  Over- 
crowding, dangerous  for  the  parents,  is  fatal  for  the 
child  ;  in  France,  the  smallness  of  families  effectively 
settles  the  question.  We  all  know  the  results  of  over- 
crowding— social,  moral,  spiritual  and  racial — and,  if  a 
small  population  does  away  with  these  dangers,  the 
position  of  France  becomes  truly  enviable. 

As  regards  the  land,  a  small  population  is  a  blessing 
when  it  corresponds,  as  exactly  as  it  seems  to  do  in 

262 


The  Birthrate 

France,  to  the  arable  area.  Rural  exodus  has,  of  late 
years,  been  causing  alarm  and  it  is  traceable  to  individ- 
ual ambition  and  restlessness  only,  for  there  is  no  "  land 
question  "  before  a  nation  of  peasant  proprietors.  Thus, 
about  half  the  people  earn  their  living  on  the  land,  as 
opposed  to  about  ten  per  cent  in  wealthy  England. 
Small  estates  are  not  unduly  split  up  and  pass  easily 
from  father  to  sons,  the  other  children,  if  any,  being 
provided  for  in  cash,  which  enables  them  to  purchase 
their  own  holding.  Thus  the  people  are  not  driven 
from  the  land,  as  they  would  be  if  their  fathers  indulged 
in  the  questionable  luxury  enjoyed  by  British  agricultural 
labourers  of  families  ranging  between  four  and  a  dozen. 
This  picture  is  rather  idyllic,  but  its  truth  appears 
when  the  observer  passes  through  the  well-tilled  fields 
of  France  or  mixes  with  the  cheerful  well-fed,  well- 
housed  working  class ;  oblivious  of  political  dangers 
the  French  continue  to  enjoy  their  lives  soberly,  to 
progress  in  education  and  refinement  and  to  cultivate 
the  arts  of  peace.  It  is  terrible  to  think  that  the  time 
may  come  when  payment  for  prosperity  will  be  exacted 
to  the  full ;  the  French  have  attained  a  high  social 
standard,  but  the  time  may  yet  come  when  their 
independence  will  only  be  preserved  thanks  to  inter- 
national jealousy.  For  the  sake  of  civilisation  and  the 
happiness  of  the  French  people,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that; 
for  many  years  yet,  they  will  not  be  drawn  further 
into  the  maelstrom  of  military  competition  and  of  cut- 
throat commercialism. 


^6^ 


CHAPTER   XIII 
EDUCATION 

THE  difficulties  that  confront  one  who  wishes  to 
give  an  adequate  idea  of  any  British  educational 
problem  are  not  absent  when  a  foreign  system  is  under 
consideration  ;  indeed  they  are  intensified.  We  do  not 
as  yet  exactly  know  what  is  good  and  what  is  bad 
education  ;  we  hesitate  between  the  classics  and  modern 
science  and  attempt,  with  alternating  enthusiasm  and 
diffidence,  to  break  the  bonds  of  custom  and  red  tape. 
To  describe  is  however  easier  than  to  suggest,  but  it 
may  at  once  be  said  that  first-hand  knowledge  of  British 
systems  is  not  very  necessary  in  this  particular  case,  on 
account  of  the  considerable  difference  that  exists  between 
the  various  public  schools  and  even  between  elementary 
schools.  So  much  depends  on  the  personality  of  a 
headmaster  and  of  the  staff,  that  it  is  fruitless  and  unfair 
to  generalise.  There  is  but  little  doubt  that  the  product 
of  Eton  is  different  from  that  of  Rugby,  though  dis- 
similarities may  vanish  in  after  life ;  in  the  same  man- 
ner, the  pupils  of  two  Council  schools  may  differ  to  a 
considerable  degree,  according  to  the  particular  person- 
alities under  whose  control  they  were  placed. 

These  remarks  apply  to  France  in  a  lesser  degree 
than  to  Great  Britain,  thanks  to  the  highly  centralised 
machinery  that  controls  education.     There  are  athletic 


Education 

schools  and  working  schools  in  France,  just  as  there  are 
"swats"  and  "slacks"  at  any  British  institution,  but  the 
fact  that  education  is  in  the  hands  of  the  State  prevents 
contrasts  from  being  very  strongly  marked.  Thus  the 
difference  that  exists  between  the  pupil  of  the  Lycee 
Condorcet  and  of  the  College  Chaptal,  the  nearest  French 
equivalents  to  public  schools,  is  no  greater  than  that  which 
separates  a  Paddington  Council  school  from  another  in 
Battersea ;  there  are  no  distinguishing  characteristics 
such  as  those  which  hallmark  the  English  public-school 
boy ;  in  the  case  of  one  Paris  school,  perhaps,  the  Lych 
fanson,  a  superiority  of  muscular  development  is  ap- 
parent, but  a  single  case  of  individuality  is  surely 
insufficient. 

Thus  it  is  possible  to  generalise  about  French  schools 
to  a  far  greater  degree  than  in  the  case  of  British 
institutions.  Whereas  in  this  country  private  enter- 
prise and  private  benefactions  have  led  to  the  jealous 
upholding  of  individuality,  in  France  the  State,  follow- 
ing in  the  steps  of  Napoleon,  has  tended  to  bring  the 
schools  into  line.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  reliable 
information,  collected  by  Englishmen,  is  available  on 
the  subject,  whilst  French  critics  usually  go  astray 
unless  they  are  warned  that  no  British  public  school  is 
absolutely  representative  of  its  fellows  ;  as  they  almost 
invariably  laud  the  British  system  to  the  skies  this  has 
been  forgiven  them,  but  we  must  not  forget  that  their 
errors  are  due  to  a  reaction  from  French  theories  of 
education,  which  have  hitherto  been  utterly  opposed  to 
those  of  England. 

As  has  already  been  said  in  the  first  chapter  of  this 
book,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  for  an  outsider  to  judge 
a   foreign    institution  ;    if  this  is  so  in  the  case  of  a 

265 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Parliament,  how  much  greater  must  be  the  obstacles 
when  we  attempt  to  analyse  a  problem  complicated  by 
the  ungaugeable  factor  of  the  boy  mind !  Even  a 
British  schoolmaster,  accustomed  as  he  may  be  to  its 
vagaries,  must  bring  into  his  investigation  a  spirit  of 
continual  comparison  which  often  vitiates  his  deductions. 
It  is  this  very  difficulty  which  enables  one  who  has 
spent  six  years  in  one  of  the  Paris  Lycees,  which  have 
left  vivid  memories  behind  them,  to  paint  a  true  picture. 

Though  these  years  were  spent  in  the  most  athletic 
school  in  France,  the  examination  results  of  which  were 
not  remarkably  brilliant,  the  education  given  in  it  may 
be  taken  as  a  fair  sample  of  the  average  standard  of 
learning  in  a  French  public  school,  however  superior  it 
may  have  been  in  the  playing  fields. 

A  notable  feature  of  French  education  in  general  is 
the  extent  to  which  all  classes  have  been  benefited  by 
it ;  up  to  the  age  of  thirteen  it  is,  as  in  Great  Britain, 
compulsory,  and  has  reached  the  masses  without  diffi- 
culty, particularly  in  the  towns.  Its  uniformity  makes 
it  sometimes  impossible  to  recognise  the  various  classes; 
if  these  exist  in  France,  they  do  not  manifest  them- 
selves so  openly  by  manner  and  speech  as  they  do  in 
Great  Britain,  and  particularly  in  England.  The 
peculiarities  of  delivery,  attitude  and  expression,  that 
are  in  Great  Britain  confined  to  certain  classes,  are  to  be 
found  in  France  in  individuals  whose  training  should 
have  been  different ;  thus  it  is  always  difficult  to  class 
a  Frenchman,  a  most  desirable  state  of  things  in  a 
Republican  State.  There  is,  of  course,  a  perceptible 
difference  between  the  product  of  the  Ecole  Communale 
and  the  Lycee,  but  it  does  not  always  persist  in  after 
life, 

?66. 


Education 

This  similarity  might  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
Ecole  Cornmunale  is  so  very  good  and  the  Lycee  so  very 
bad  ;  in  any  case  it  is  noteworthy  that  continentals  in 
general  are  not  readily  classified,  owing  to  their  pro- 
nounced external  characteristics,  such  as  gesticulation, 
violence  of  voice  and  expression,  etc.  However  ridi- 
culous the  stage  Frenchman  may  be,  the  picture  is 
founded  on  fact ;  as  the  majority  of  Frenchmen  have 
common  and  dominating  mannerisms,  minor  differences 
pass  unnoticed  even  by  other  Frenchmen. 

To  pass  from  general  to  particular  questions,  a  brief 
comparison  should  be  made  between  the  Ecoles  Com- 
mmiales  and  the  elementary  schools  of  Great  Britain. 
The  status  of  the  Ecole  Cornmunale  is  very  different 
from  that  of  its  British  equivalent ;  deservedly  or  not,  a 
certain  stigma  is  in  England  attached  to  the  word 
"  Elementary "  when  applied  to  a  school,  and  frantic 
efforts  are  often  made  by  small  tradesmen  and  com- 
mercial men  to  send  their  sons  to  an  "  Academy  "  run 
by  a  person  whom  the  French  graphically  describe  as  a 
"  soupmonger,"  in  which  they  are  not  likely  to  be  better 
trained,  but  which  will  confer  upon  them  a  status  that 
may  impress  the  unenlightened.  This  is  mainly  due  to 
the  fact  that  State  organisations  invariably  suggest  to 
the  popular  mind  a  workhouse  or  a  hospital,  and  it  is 
notorious  that  the  masses  are  often  ready  to  suffer  to 
an  inconceivable  degree  rather  than  appeal  to  these. 
In  France,  where  education  is  almost  altogether 
in  the  hands  of  the  State,  this  distinction  does  not 
exist ;  to  send  a  child  to  an  Ecole  Coniviunale  instead  of 
to  a  Lycee  only  means  choosing  between  different 
grades,  but  not  between  different  systems.  I  do  not 
contend   that   the    pupils   are    drawn    from    the   same 

267 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
classes,  but  it  is  undeniable  that  many  children  are  to 
be  found  in  the  Ecole  Communale  whom  one  might  have 
expected  to  find  their  way  into  the  Lycee.  Indeed,  some 
parents,  who  are  well  able  to  pay  the  fees  of  the  latter, 
deliberately  select  the  lower  institution  and  complete 
the  child's  education  by  sending  it  to  a  Lycie  on  com- 
pletion of  the  course. 

Such  a  state  of  things  would  not  prevail  if  the  educa- 
tion given  in  the  Ecole  Communale  were  unsatisfactory ; 
no  nation  is  more  keenly  anxious  for  the  welfare  of  its 
children  than  are  the  French.  This  is  explained  by  the 
smallness  of  families  and  by  the  fact  that  in  a  single  child 
are  often  centred  the  ambitions  of  its  parents.  It  is  an 
obvious  fact  that  the  working  classes  of  France  are 
better  educated  and  generally  happier  than  those  of 
Great  Britain ;  if  we  make  allowances  for  natural  ten- 
dencies, above  all  for  better  housing,  for  sobriety  and 
thrift,  we  are  still  compelled  to  connect  with  education 
the  comparative  correctness  of  the  speech  of  the  work- 
ing classes,  their  appreciation  of  the  arts  and  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  women  as  regards  household  economy 
and  cooking.  For  all  this  the  Ecole  Communale  is  in 
great  part  responsible,  not  only  through  its  teaching, 
which  is  sound  and  modelled  somewhat  on  the  same 
lines  as  the  equivalent  courses  in  the  Lyct^e,  but  because 
it  raises  the  general  tone  of  working-class  children  and 
makes  them  more  receptive  and  more  able  to  assimilate 
home  training.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  elementary 
schools  attain  such  a  result  but,  again  allowing  for  the 
indescribably  evil  conditions  of  British  housing,  intem- 
perance and  general  poverty,  one  may  be  permitted  to 
doubt  it ;  the  inefficiency  of  domestic  servants  in  every 
direction,   particularly    the    incapacity   of    the   British 

268 


Education 

cook,  the  wastefulness  of  both  sexes,  their  imperfect 
English  and  their  frequent  general  ignorance,  tend  to 
show  that  British  education  has  still  leeway  to  make  up 
before  it  can  compare  results  with  Germany  and  France. 

Much  that  has  been  said  above  of  the  Ecole  Communale 
applies  to  the  Lycee ;  this  institution  is  roughly  equiva- 
lent to  the  Grammar  School  and  to  the  Public  school  ; 
it  partakes  rather  of  the  nature  of  the  former  than  of  that 
of  the  latter,  but  its  pupils  number  all  those  who  would, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  go  to  a  Public  school. 
As  regards  fees,  it  is,  however,  easier  to  send  a  French 
boy  to  a  Lych  than  an  English  boy  to  a  Public  school  ; 
the  cost  of  an  English  Public-school  education  is 
variously  estimated  :  in  the  case  of  one  school  it  ranges 
up  to  ^400  a  year.  This  seems  exaggerated,  but  even 
half  that  sum,  which  I  understand  not  to  be  an  unusual 
figure,  is  enormous  in  comparison  with  the  charge  of  the 
Lyc^e.  There  the  fees  vary  slightly  according  to  the 
age  of  the  pupils,  but  they  can  be  taken  at  about  £'JQ 
per  annum  for  boarders,  ;^35  for  half-boarders,  who 
lunch  in  the  school,  and  ^18  for  day  boys  ;  Lydes  for 
girls  are  less  numerous  owing,  up  to  the  present,  to  the 
competition  of  Convents,  but  their  fees  are  as  a  rule 
fairly  low. 

The  pupils  of  the  Lycies  are  therefore  drawn  from  a 
very  different  class  from  that  which  fills  the  Public 
schools.  The  latter  are  practically  preserved  for  the 
well-to-do,  whilst  in  France  low  fees  enable  the  son  of 
the  tradesman  and  the  son  of  the  President  to  study 
side  by  side ;  if  I  remember  right,  the  first  class  I 
attended  at  the  Lycee  Janson  numbered  about  thirty 
boys ;  some  ten  were  the  sons  of  men  of  business,^  four 

^  Mostly  of  small  means,  agents,  canvassers,  managing  clerks,  etc. 

369 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

or  five  of  men  of  independent  means,  three  of  profes- 
sional men,  three  of  tradesmen,  and  one  was  the  son  of 
a  concierge;  ^  the  rest  belonging  to  the  families  of  minor 
officials  and  clerks.  This  is  a  democratic  combination 
which,  though  it  prevails  to  a  greater  extent  on  the 
"  modern "  side  than  on  the  "  classical,"  serves  as  an 
excellent  preparation  for  the  further  levelling  process 
practised  in  the  army.  It  is  therefore  very  difficult  to 
compare  the  Lycee  with  the  Public  school  ;  the  latter 
supplies  education  (to  the  willing  pupil),  trains  his 
character  and  his  body,  while  the  Lycee  aims  at  forcing 
knowledge  upon  every  boy.  Education  at  a  Lycee  does 
not  by  any  means  represent  in  France  the  asset  which  a 
Public-school  education  is  in  Great  Britain;  \h.Q. Lycees2A 
State  institutions  of  recent  date  have  no  traditions  ;  the 
masters  are  appointed  by  the  Government,  and  are  not 
allowed  to  depart  from  the  curriculum  any  more  than  the 
head-master  is  allowed  originality  in  his  administration. 
If  a  tradition  grows  up,  such  as  that  of  games,  it  is  due  to 
fortuitous  circumstances,  and  is  not  encouraged  by  the 
authorities.  Roughly  speaking,  the  difference  amounts 
to  this :  that  a  man  does  not  send  his  son  to  Condorcet 
or  Chaptal  for  any  definite  reason,  except  that  of  con- 
venience, because  the  selection  will  not  affect  his  chances 
in  life,  whilst  in  Great  Britain  a  boy's  career  is  un- 
doubtedly influenced  by  the  school  he  was  sent  to. 

The  differences  that  exist  between  Lycees  and  Public 
schools  are  thus  very  elusive :  owing  to  the  fact  that 
most  of  the  boys  are  non-resident  it  is  difficult  for  the 
headmaster  to  influence  them  and  to  give  his  school  a 
particular  tone.     As  he  has  no  voice  in  the  selection  of 

^  This  word  cannot  be  translated  ;  the  position  is  roughly  that  of  a 
hall  porter  in  a  block  of  flats. 

270 


Education 

the  masters,  there  is  no  unity  in  the  teaching  staff,  so 
that  one  form  may  have  an  able  master  on  the  Monday 
and  a  nonentity  on  the  Tuesday ;  the  headmaster,  no 
doubt  partly  owing  to  this  state  of  things,  hardly  ever 
makes  an  effort  to  influence  the  tone  of  the  school  and 
confines  himself  to  representing  the  Executive  with  the 
discretion  of  an  ambassador,  including  his  self-efface- 
ment French  Lycees  are  intended  to  supply  knowledge, 
not  to  form  character ;  home  education  usually  attends 
to  the  latter,  though  perhaps  inadequately.  A  reaction 
has  set  in  of  late  years,  as  the  French  have  imbibed  an 
immense  respect  for  British  systems :  not  content  with  the 
efficiency  of  their  teachers,  they  are  demanding  a  rever- 
sion to  more  natural  methods,  such  as  are  practised  in 
Great  Britain,  but  this  has  not  influenced  the  powers 
that  be,  and  the  schools  are  likely  to  remain  unaltered 
unless  the  growing  influence  of  athletics  works  an  in- 
ternal revolution. 

From  the  Lycee  to  the  University  is  a  less  natural 
step  than  would  be  the  case  in  Great  Britain.  The 
French  do  not  look  upon  the  gaining  of  a  University 
degree  as  the  schoolboy's  crowning  task  ;  this  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  most  Lycees  lead  the  student  so  far  that  he 
can  enter  special  schools,  such  as  those  for  Engineering, 
F'orestry,  the  Army  and  Navy,  etc.,  without  going 
through  a  special  university  course.  Indeed  most 
University  students  have  a  definite  object  in  view  and 
usually  intend  to  devote  themselves  to  the  law  or  to 
teaching ;  they  do  not  look  upon  the  university  as  a  finish- 
ing school,  but  as  a  means  of  acquiring  knowledge. 

Thus  a  very  clear  difference  exists  between  the  older 
British  university  and  even  so  venerable  an  institution 
as  La  Sorbonne,  but  it  is  far  easier  for  an  Englishman  to 

271 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

understand  it  than  it  is  for  him  to  appreciate  the  dis- 
tinction between  Lycees  and  Public  schools,  because  he 
has  similar  instances  in  his  own  country.  The  French 
Colleges  are  in  a  position  somewhat  similar  to  that  of 
London  University,  or  of  the  Scotch  universities  as 
compared  with  Oxford  and  Cambridge. 

If  we  regard  Oxford  and  Cambridge  as  types  of 
British  Universities,  the  main  distinction  is  that  there  are 
in  France  no  residential  colleges  and  that  the  all-powerful 
influence  of  intellectual  fellowship  is  absent.  I  am  aware 
that  this  privilege  is  not  always  made  full  use  of  by  the 
young  men  who  frequent  the  English  universities,  and 
that  a  very  large  section  look  upon  the  obtaining  of  a 
"blue"  as  being  more  important  than  that  of  a  degree, 
but  it  is  certain  that  many  benefit  to  an  extraordinary 
extent  from  this  peculiar  opportunity  of  culture. 
Strictly  speaking,  no  institution  can  be  an  ideal  uni- 
versity unless  it  be  residential ;  any  other  may  be  any- 
thing between  a  glorified  polytechnic  and  a  learned 
pedagogic  faculty,  but  it  can  only  hope  to  impart  know- 
ledge and  can  hardly  aspire  to  influence  character  deeply: 
if  this  point  of  view  be  not  adopted  by  the  reader,  he  will 
no  doubt  look  upon  the  residential  universities  as  not 
one  whit  more  valuable  than  those  whose  students  are 
scattered.  The  extraordinary  advantage  of  the  resi- 
dential college  lies  in  the  fact  that  men  whose  minds 
are  developing  more  or  less  on  the  same  hnes,  owing  to 
their  being  taught  by  the  same  masters,  are  thrown  into 
continuous  contact  with  one  another,  in  classroom  as 
in  playing  field,  and  that  the  intellectual  conflict  of  their 
diverse  natures  brings  out  the  more  serious  side  of  their 
character.  That  is  in  great  part  where  the  French 
universities  fail ;  their  graduates  are  often  learned  and 

272 


Education 

full  of  intellectual  promise,  but  they  usually  lack  the 
culture  that  proceeds  from  association  with  culture. 

The  French  universities  have  as  an  object  the  impart- 
ing of  as  much  knowledge  as  may  be  required  by  the 
workers,  but  there  their  action  stops.  As  soon  as  the 
student  leaves  the  lecture  hall  he  is  free  to  return  to  the 
niche  he  has  constituted  for  himself,  to  its  probable 
triviality  and  possible  grossness,  or  to  the  vulgar  plea- 
sures of  the  town.  His  character  does  not  come  within 
the  purview  of  the  authorities ;  they  do  not  seek  to 
influence  it  any  more  than  does  the  headmaster  of  a 
Lyc^e.  Indeed  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  there  is 
in  France  no  training  of  character,  a  fact  which  may 
account  for  the  strongly  developed  individualism  of  the 
people,  their  unruliness  and  inability  to  combine.  Above 
all,  as  regards  the  universities,  they  lose  the  advantage 
of  that  peculiar  monastic,  thoughtful  life  which  is  offered 
the  young  Englishman  ;  again,  let  us  remember  that  a 
number  of  undergraduates  are  unconscious  of  the  boon 
that  is  theirs,  that  they  flout  it  by  devoting  themselves 
exclusively  to  sports  and  living  in  modish  luxury.  But, 
even  if  these  were  the  larger  number,  which  is  not  the 
case,  the  collegiate  influence  upon  the  minority  would 
still  be  of  great  national  importance  ;  whoever  passes 
through  the  peaceful  quadrangle  of  All  Souls  or  looks 
upon  the  grim  beauty  of  Brasenose  will,  if  he  have 
imagination,  realise  in  a  flash  what  such  surroundings 
may  mean  to  a  mind  in  course  of  formation. 

This  is  not  a  panegyric  of  the  older  English  universi- 
ties, a  task  which  is  best  undertaken  by  their  own 
alumni,  but  emphasis  must  be  laid  on  these  points  if  we 
wish  to  understand  how  different  is  the  French  univer- 
sity reghne.  Whereas  Oxford  and  Cambridge  produce 
T  273 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

every  year  a  little  band  of  united  minds,  capable  of 
exercising  an  influence,  of  spreading  a  tradition  of  cul- 
ture and  intellectual  beauty,  Paris  and  its  compeers 
bring  forward  a  host  of  highly-taught  young  men,  many 
of  them  devoid  of  culture,  often  ignorant  of  the  elements 
of  taste,  learned  but  undisciplined,  ambitious  but  with- 
out common  aims,  separate  units,  not  parts  of  a  great 
whole. 

For  all  these  reasons,  Frenchmen  who  have  studied 
the  system  in  vogue  at  English  universities  have  imbibed 
as  lively  an  admiration  for  Oxford  and  Cambridge  as 
for  the  British  Public  schools.  Members  of  an  imagina- 
tive race,  they  intuitively  understand  what  miracles 
such  an  atmosphere  can  work  and  they  honestly  deplore 
the  poverty  of  ideals  from  which  their  own  institutions 
suffer.  They  even  enviously  praise  the  over-development 
of  sports  in  certain  university  circles,  carried  away  by  the 
reaction  against  the  effeminate  student  of  older  France  ; 
the  movement  in  favour  of  open-air  life  that  is  now 
gaining  ground  in  every  direction  in  France,  has  its 
roots  in  Great  Britain,  so  that  from  this  point  of  view 
the  Englishman  can  do  no  wrong. 

It  is  of  course  practically  out  of  the  question  to 
establish  a  French  university  on  English  lines ;  en- 
thusiasm and  treasure  might  be  showered  upon  such  an 
institution  but  they  would  only  endow  it  with  the  first 
laboratory  or  the  greatest  library  in  the  world  :  they 
could  not  buy  it  traditions  ;  they  could  not  mellow  its 
colours,  deepen  its  turf  or  muffle  with  the  touch  of  ages 
the  sound  of  its  bells.  The  university  factor  is  absent 
in  France ;  talent  is  individual  and  vigorous,  but  it  is  a 
phenomenon,  not  the  natural  fruit  of  a  system.  French 
talent  is  meteoric,  not  effulgent ;  it  gains  in  intensity 

274 


Education 

what  it  loses  in  profundity  and  is  a  manifestation  of 
such  a  nature  that  we  can  hardly  compare  it  with  that 
produced  by  British  minds. 

Leaving  the  consideration  of  the  Universities  and  the 
Ecoles  Conummales,  both  of  which  institutions  are  in 
themselves  unable  to  do  more  than  impart  facts,  let  us 
bring  out  a  few  points  with  regard  to  the  Lycces  which, 
as  many  of  their  pupils  are  resident,  can  be  more  fairly 
compared  with  English  schools.  The  Lycees,  moreover, 
represent  the  middle  classes,  with  a  sprinkling  of  work- 
ing-class elements  on  a  low  property  basis ;  thus  their 
teaching  stands  for  that  of  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
people,  of  that  portion  which  under  the  present  social 
system  generally  produces  teachers  and  leaders.  The 
essential  differences  between  Lycees  and  Public  schools 
have  already  been  brought  out,  but  there  are  aspects 
peculiar  to  the  French  system  which  are  well  worth 
considering  as  they  shed  some  light  upon  national 
characteristics. 

The  most  noticeable  point  is  no  doubt  that  the 
French  boy  is  overworked  ;  the  Lycee  being  intended 
to  enable  him  to  obtain,  at  the  early  age  of  seventeen 
or  eighteen,  a  degree  about  equivalent  to  that  of  a 
Bachelor  of  Arts  or  of  Science,  he  is  compelled  to 
absorb  an  enormous  mass  of  knowledge  which  he  may  or 
may  not  assimilate.  The  curriculum  is  exceedingly  heavy 
and  is  prepared  and  revised  by  a  departmental  council 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Minister  of  Education ;  de- 
tails given  further  on  of  the  instruction  given  to  boys 
not  sixteen  years  old  will  show  how  varied  is  its  nature 
and  how  extensive  its  scope.  As  a  result,  the  French 
boy  is  expected  to  spend  on  five  days  a  week  four  hours 
a  day  in  the  classroom,  and  on  one  day  two  hours ; 

275 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

from  the  age  of  fourteen  upwards  this  is  increased  by 
two  hours  a  week,  so  that,  at  this  not  very  advanced 
age,  the  pupil  is  under  direct  tuition  for  twenty-four 
hours  a  week.  These  twenty-four  hours  are  well  filled, 
as  most  of  the  lessons  are  dictated  and  individual  ques- 
tions are  continual ;  these  are  solid  working  hours.  But 
the  boy  is  not  free  as  soon  as  he  leaves  the  classroom, 
for  lessons  must  be  learned,  poetry  and  prose  committed 
to  memory  and  other  home  work  prepared.  A  boy  of 
average  intelligence  cannot  hope  to  satisfy  his  masters 
unless  he  devote  at  least  two  hours  and  often  four  to 
this  part  of  his  work,  every  day  in  the  week.  We  thus 
arrive  at  as  much  as  an  eight  hours'  day,  a  preposterous 
total  for  a  boy  of  fourteen,  not  only  because  his  faculties 
are  overtaxed  but  because  such  labour  leaves  hardly 
any  time  for  exercise. 

I  can  vouch  for  the  fact  that,  some  years  ago,  even  at 
the  most  athletic  school  in  France,  the  Lycie  Janson, 
the  boys  could  not  hope  for  more  than  one  hour's 
exercise  a  day  and  that  even  of  the  most  unsatisfactory 
kind,  games  in  the  playground  being  practically  un- 
known. Holidays  do  not  solve  the  difficulty,  for  they 
only  amount  to  a  week  at  the  end  of  the  year,  eleven 
or  twelve  days  at  Easter  and  two  months  in  the  summer. 
It  will  be  easily  understood  how  necessary  the  masters 
find  it  to  press  their  pupils  to  the  utmost,  when  we 
consider  the  subjects  that  the  French  boy  is  supposed 
to  master  when  still  in  his  teens  and  the  methods  that 
are  used.  A  distinction  must  be  established  between 
the  "  classical  "  and  the  "  modern  "  sides,  which  exist  in 
all  Paris  Lycces  and  in  all  the  important  provincial 
ones ;  features  of  the  first  are  of  course  Greek  and 
Latin,  to  which  from  ten  to  fourteen  hours  a  week  are 

276 


Education 

devoted,  with  even  less  success  than  in  Great  Britain  ; 
unusual  as  it  may  be  to  meet  with  an  Englishman 
between  twenty  and  thirty  who  can  construe  anything 
but  a  common  quotation,  in  France  the  educated  man 
v/ho  quotes  or  who  can  translate  Latin  is  still  more 
rare.  The  practical  French  mind  no  longer  favours  the 
study  of  the  Classics  ;  indeed  the  dead  languages  are 
in  France  dead  in  the  true  sense.  Whether  Latin  and 
Greek  are  useful  in  themselves  as  a  training  for  the 
memory  or  valuable  in  some  obscure  philological  direc- 
tion I  will  not  attempt  to  decide,  but  the  fact  remains 
that  the  Classics  play  no  great  part  in  the  intellectual 
development  of  France.  As  a  result,  the  "modern" 
side  has,  during  the  last  ten  years,  gained  considerably 
in  public  esteem  and  in  many  colleges  its  pupils  con- 
siderably outnumber  those  who  cling  to  the  older 
system  ;  the  odium  that  still  attaches  to  this  teaching 
in  English  public  schools,  thanks  to  a  form  of  rather 
priggish  conservatism,  is  unknown  in  France  where 
there  is  always  a  leaning  towards  the  new  order  when 
it  is  opposed  to  the  old.  If  we  note,  therefore,  that 
boys  on  the  "  classical "  side  devote  the  remainder  oi 
their  time  to  their  own  language  and  to  the  elements  oi 
history  and  geography,  we  need  say  no  more,  as  this 
part  of  their  curriculum  is  practically  identical  with  that 
of  the  "  modern  "  side. 

On  the  modern  side,  we  are  confronted  with  a 
difTerent  system  ;  there  is  nothing  commercial  about 
it  and  it  aims  consistently  at  developing  imagination 
and  culture.  The  object  of  this  teaching  is  to  fit  the 
boy,  by  a  direct  and  rapid  process,  for  either  commerce 
or  industry  or  to  prepare  him  fully  for  professional 
work  ;  in  addition,  it  aims  at  giving  him  wide  general 

277 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

knowledge.  The  system  logically  includes  intensive 
cultivation  of  the  boy's  memory ;  if  his  mind  is  to 
absorb  a  large  quantity  of  information  it  becomes 
essential  to  develop  his  mental  muscles.  To  this  effect 
poetry  and  especially  prose  are  committed  to  memory 
at  least  three  times  a  week,  in  addition  to  which,  every 
three  months,  competitions  are  instituted  when  the  boy 
is  expected  to  memorise  several  hundreds  of  lines  of 
poetry  and,  a  more  difficult  task,  some  four  or  five 
pages  of  prose ;  if  the  reader  have  any  doubts  as  to 
the  work  entailed  by  this  system  when  the  authors 
selected  are  Voltaire  or  Montesquieu,  let  him  commit 
to  memory  say  six  hundred  words  (about  two 
average  pages)  of  Addison  or  Herbert  Spencer.  As 
a  result  of  this  peculiar  feature,  the  memory  is 
strengthened  to  such  an  extent  that  it  retains  informa- 
tion to  an  extraordinary  degree ;  it  is  not  unusual  for 
a  young  Frenchman  to  remember  word  for  word  long 
passages  learned  by  rote  some  ten  years  before. 

That  is  training  in  the  same  sense  as  Greek  and 
Latin,  but  it  entails  less  labour  and  above  all  absorbs 
less  time.  How  brilliantly  effective  it  must  be  will  be 
realised  when  the  following  curriculum  has  been  con- 
sidered. The  energies  of  the  modern  side  are  brought 
to  bear  principally  on  Science  in  general,  on  the  study 
of  French  and  modern  languages  and  on  that  of 
History.  As  regards  Science,  the  teaching  is  thorough 
and  usually  absorbs  about  eight  hours  a  week ; 
mathematics  are  of  course  included  up  to  the  integral 
and  differential  calculus.  These  advanced  studies  are 
rather  the  exception,  but  it  must  be  noted  that,  at  the 
age  of  sixteen,  the  pupil  has  finished  with  the  geometry 
of  solids,  has   begun    trigonometry  and  the  study   of 

278 


Education 

theories  as  to  solids  engendered  by  the  revolution  of 
planes  ;  algebra  has  of  course  led  him  to  a  similarly 
advanced  stage.  These  details  are  quoted  so  as  to 
show  how  far  the  French  boy  is  brought  at  an  early 
age ;  to  give  a  fuller  account  of  the  mathematical 
curriculum  would  be  unnecessary  but,  before  leaving 
aside  the  teaching  of  science,  it  should  be  mentioned 
that,  at  the  same  age,  chemistry  has  been  mastered  up 
to  organics  and  physics  up  to  and  including  a  fair 
knowledge  of  electricity.  Laboratory  work  is  not 
usual,  but  experiments  are  numerous  as  the  State 
provides  lavishly  for  this  form  of  education. 

Coupled  with  the  attention  given  to  scientific  training 
is  a  great  deal  of  teaching  that  tends  to  develop  the 
faculty  of  language  and  the  appreciation  of  the  beautiful. 
The  study  of  modern  foreign  languages  is  extensively 
pursued,  as  the  French  have  of  late  years  looked  upon 
this  part  of  a  boy's  education  as  being  all-important.  In 
this  connection  Lycies  suffer,  however,  from  the  fact  that 
foreign  teachers  cannot  be  employed  by  the  State  ;  thus 
the  teaching  is  usually  very  inefficient,  and  a  fair  know- 
ledge of  foreign  languages  could  not  be  claimed  for  the 
French  boy  any  more  than  for  the  young  Englishman, 
were  it  not  for  the  keenness  of  parents  in  this  direction  ; 
coaching  prevails  to  an  extraordinary  extent,  and  the 
boy  is  thrown  into  continual  contact  with  foreign 
domestics,  so  that  his  progress  as  regards  modern 
languages  is  traceable  to  home  conditions.  Thus  the 
study  of  foreign  languages  is  progressing  fast  among 
the  middle  classes,  but  not  entirely  thanks  to  the  Lyc^es. 

If  we  look  upon  the  foregoing  studies  as  partaking 
of  exact  science,  we  find  that  History  and  French  are 
the  chosen  mediums  of  culture.    As  regards  the  former, 

279 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
its  development  is  peculiar ;  not  only  does  it  embrace 
the  history  of  France  up  to  1870  (an  important  point 
if  we  remember  that  we  are  dealing  with  schools  and 
not  with  universities),  but  it  also  comprises  the  study 
of  foreign  history.  Thus,  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  the 
French  youth  has  amassed  some  knowledge,  not  only 
of  the  "  battles  and  dates  "  of  the  history  of  his  own 
country,  but  he  has  been  told  of  the  formation  of  the 
United  States  and  given  an  idea  of  their  Constitution  ; 
he  has  studied  certain  aspects  of  British  history,  knows 
the  origins  of  the  Austrian  and  German  Empires  and 
something  of  the  history  of  the  Popes  ;  such  obscure 
conflicts  as  those  between  Charles  XII  and  Peter  the 
Great  or  the  vicissitudes  of  Holland  are  not  foreign 
to  him.  No  nation  of  Europe  entirely  escapes  the 
attention  of  the  French  teacher,  even  when  it  has  never 
come  into  contact  with  France,  either  in  peace  or  war. 
Thus  there  is  never  an  absolute  blank  in  the  French- 
man's mind  when  he  is  confronted  with  the  question 
of  the  Balkans  or  of  Poland  ;  there  is  in  his  brain  a 
substratum  of  knowledge  on  which  intelligent  newspaper 
reading  can  erect  a  solid  edifice. 

The  value  of  a  knowledge  of  History  cannot  be  over- 
estimated ;  there  are  probably  no  more  potent  means 
of  broadening  human  sympathies  than  the  study  of  the 
fortunes  and  great  deeds  of  other  races.  Nothing 
tends  more  towards  a  peaceable  attitude  than  a  thorough 
grasp  of  the  fact  that  other  nations  have  lived  through 
great  wars  and  succeeded  on  land  and  sea,  even  at  the 
expense  of  Great  Britain ;  Fontenoy  is  a  healthy  cor- 
rective for  Trafalgar  and  Saratoga  for  Waterloo.  The 
splendour  of  a  Charles-Quint,  the  valour  of  a  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  the  subtlety  of  a  Cavour  should  never  be 

280 


Education 

forgotten    when   we   ponder   over   the   greatness   of  a 
Cromwell  or  a  Wellington. 

True,  in  the  French  Lycee,  such  knowledge  can  be 
imparted  only  superficially,  but  at  least  the  seed  is  sown 
arid,  even  did  it  never  grow,  it  is  a  healthy  element  in 
one  who  is  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  world.  The  study 
of  foreign  history  brings  the  pupil  into  contact  with 
civilisations  other  than  his  own  and  tinges  his  inborn 
jingoism  with  healthy  respect  for  other  races.  How- 
ever, we  must  not  conclude  that  the  manufacture  of 
"  Little  Francers "  is  the  dominating  characteristic  of 
Lycee  teaching ;  the  study  of  the  French  language  and 
of  its  literature  occupies  perhaps  the  most  important 
place  in  the  curriculum.  French  authors  are  read  and 
analysed  several  times  a  week,  but  this  feature  is  not 
confined  to  France,  so  it  need  only  be  mentioned  in 
passing ;  a  notable  fact  is  that  the  authorities  lay  stress 
on  the  study  of  Greek  and  Latin  authors,  of  which 
there  are  excellent  translations.  This  is  probably 
unique ;  the  "  modern "  side  devotes  no  time  to  the 
study  of  the  originals,  but  the  framers  of  the  curriculum 
do  not  think  it  advisable  to  leave  their  pupils  in  total 
ignorance  of  the  great  dead.  They  look  upon  the 
Greek  and  Roman  traditions  as  a  potent  medium  of 
culture,  as  a  school  of  refinement  and  taste;  thus  we 
find  among  the  books  that  are  read  and  analysed  all 
the  works  of  Homer  and  Virgil,  most  of  Herodotus, 
Livy,  Aristophanes,  Plautus,  Plutarch's  Lives,  etc.  As 
a  result,  the  teaching  of  ancient  history  (which  is  in- 
cluded) is  supplemented  by  incidental  references,  and 
the  world  of  antiquity  is  revealed  in  a  familiar  tongue, 
instead  of  being  hedged  in  by  the  study  of  syntax  and 
everlasting  construing. 

281 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
Here  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  "  modern  "  side 
is  not  excluded  from  the  influence  of  the  past,  a  very 
beneficial  factor  as  regards  intellectual  development. 
The  boy  being  thus  equipped  and  his  vocabulary  much 
enriched,  his  energies  are  concentrated  upon  composi- 
tion. The  French  are  a  fluent  race  and  they  love 
spoken  and  written  eloquence  to  the  point  of  verbosity, 
so  they  foster  it  in  the  boy  by  training  him  to  express 
thought,  by  forcing  him  to  produce  it.  To  this  end 
compositions  are  written  at  least  twice  a  week,  some- 
times thrice  ;  the  most  varied  subjects  are  chosen,  so  as 
to  ensure  elasticity,  and  range  from  narrative  to  short 
theses  on  literary  subjects.  Even  the  rules  of  versifica- 
tion are  taught,  and  the  pupils  made  to  produce  a  given 
number  of  verses  on  set  subjects.  This  does  not  result 
in  the  calamitous  creation  of  a  generation  of  poets,  but 
it  is  a  characteristic  instance  of  how  thorough  French 
training  is  and  to  what  imaginative  flights  it  soars. 

As  a  result  the  Frenchman  is  generally  fluent  in  his 
own  language,  often  ingenious  and  literary  in  his  writings 
and  possessed  more  often  than  not  of  an  extensive 
vocabulary ;  he  rarely  shrinks  from  using  the  latter  in 
cases  where  the  Englishman  would  abstain  from  doing 
so  for  fear  of  being  dubbed  a  pedant.  The  authorities 
look  upon  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the  French 
language  and  literature  as  all-important  and  do  not 
relegate  these  subjects  to  obscurity,  as  is  too  often 
the  case  in  British  schools.  Briefly,  the  Lycee  does  the 
work  that  is  here  undertaken  by  universities,  with  this 
notable  difference  that,  as  only  a  small  percentage  of 
British  students  attend  the  higher  course,  the  great 
majority  of  the  French  middle  class  is  far  better  taught 
than  their  British  equals.     National  characteristics  and 

282 


Education 

study  in  more  mature  years  may  redress  the  balance, 
but  the  fact  remains  that,  on  leaving  school,  the  young 
Frenchman  possesses  a  far  better  equipment  of  informa- 
tion than  is  provided  by  the  average  British  institution. 

The  education  of  the  middle-class  boy  is  facilitated 
in  France  by  family  conditions  which  make  the  home 
circle  a  powerful  influence.  I  understand  that,  in  Great 
Britain,  the  day  boy  is  the  exception  and  that  he  is 
usually  flouted  by  his  fellow-students ;  this  may  result 
from  his  being  a  resident  in  the  small  town  or  village 
where  the  public  school  is  located,  in  which  case  he  will 
probably  belong  to  a  class  looked  upon  by  the  boarders 
as  inferior  to  that  from  which  they  spring.  Middle- 
class  families  appear  to  think  it  essential  or  preferable 
that  their  sons  should  be  boarders  rather  than  attend 
daily  courses,  and  to  such  an  extreme  does  this  go  that 
boys  are  to  be  found  in  southern  public  schools  whose 
parents  live  in  the  neighbourhood  of  great  northern 
institutions  and  vice  versa.  This  is  probably  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  the  repute  of  certain  schools  is  in 
itself  such  an  asset  that  a  judicious  selection  has  a 
value,  which  is  not  the  case  in  French  government 
schools. 

In  France,  particularly  in  Paris,  this  state  of  things 
does  not  prevail.  In  most  schools  the  boarders  are,  for 
various  excellent  reasons,  less  numerous  than  are  the 
day  boys.  There  are  no  athletics  to  induce  parents  to 
transfer  the  care  of  their  sons  to  the  school  authorities, 
none  at  least  to  which  the  day  boy  has  not  equal  access  ; 
in  fact,  it  is  far  easier  for  the  latter  to  develop  his  muscles 
than  it  is  for  the  boarder,  as  that  unfortunate  boy,  when 
the  day's  work  is  done,  has  nothing  better  at  his  dis- 
posal than  a  small  playground  ;  even  the  gymnasium  is 

283 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Centuty 

not  always  open.  The  day  boy  is  usually  free  at  four 
o'clock,  and  so  has  a  chance  of  spending  three  or  four 
hours  in  games,  should  preparation  allow  of  it  ;  thus  his 
position  is  far  better  than  that  of  the  boarder. 

We  cannot,  however,  trace  the  prevalence  of  the  day 
system  to  this  particular  reason,  as  French  families 
have  not  yet  fully  realised  the  value  of  games ;  one  of 
the  chief  grounds  for  the  practice  is  that  government 
schools  are  not  usually  located  in  the  country,  but  in 
the  heart  of  great  towns.  As  there  is  no  advantage  in 
sending  the  boy  to  one  school  rather  than  to  another, 
he  naturally  attends  a  neighbouring  one,  where  it 
would  of  course  be  ridiculous  for  him  to  be  a  boarder. 
The  tender  French  mother  (and  she  is  usually  tender  to 
the  point  of  making  the  boy  effeminate)  sees  no  reason 
why  she  should  deprive  herself  of  the  society  of  her  son, 
probably  her  only  son,  if  not  her  only  child,  and  of 
caring  for  his  bodily  and  mental  needs ;  she  therefore 
makes  her  son  a  day  boy,  an  arrangement  to  which  the 
father  agrees  with  pleasure.  If  the  French  schools 
were  equal  to  the  British  ones  in  the  matter  of  training 
character,  this  would  be  an  evil,  but  in  the  present  state 
of  things,  the  boy  loses  nothing  by  only  attending  daily 
classes.  In  the  first  place,  should  his  parents  be  at  all 
well-to-do,  he  can  be  coached  at  home  by  private 
teachers,  of  whom  he  often  has  two  ;  I  have  known 
a  case  where  a  boy  of  fourteen,  in  addition  to  his 
ordinary  school  work,  was  being  educated  by  four 
masters  who  respectively  gave  him  lessons  in  German, 
Mathematics,  Drawing  and  general  subjects.  Moreover, 
he  comes  into  contact  with  foreign  servants  and  gover- 
nesses and,  as  a  result,  his  work  is  much  more  carefully 
and  intelligently  done ;  at  any  rate  the  mother  usually 


Education 

superintends  his  work  and  natural  laziness  is  soon  dis- 
couraged. 

The  position  of  the  boarder  is  painful  when  we  con- 
trast it  with  that  of  the  day  boy ;  he  does  not  neces- 
sarily suffer  from  overwork,  but  his  years  at  school  are 
practically  years  in  gaol.  The  military  and  bureau- 
cratic system  of  France  is  rigidly  applied  to  him ;  he  is 
roused  by  the  sound  of  a  drum,  and  wears  a  uniform  as 
ugly  and  dilapidated  as  that  of  the  French  trooper. 
Day  and  night  he  is  under  the  eye  of  the  professor  or 
of  the  usher,  and  cannot  hope  for  a  moment  of  privacy  ; 
there  is  no  question  of  the  wide  "  bounds "  in  which 
English  schoolboys  are  confined :  located  as  French 
schools  are  in  great  cities,  it  is  impossible  to  allow  the 
boys  to  leave  the  school  precincts,  so  that,  if  a  boy  be 
unruly  or  lazy,  he  very  possibly  may  not,  for  a  fort- 
night or  more,  leave  the  school  buildings.  His  only  re- 
source is  the  playground,  of  which  he  soon  sickens  and 
v/here  he  lounges  listlessly  between  classes ;  he  only 
escapes  on  Thursday  afternoons  and  on  Sundays,  pro- 
vided that  his  behaviour  has  been  satisfactory  during 
the  week.  Formerly  the  boys  were  marshalled  in  a 
body  and  gravely  led  by  ushers,  in  military  order,  for  a 
walk  through  the  streets,  a  pitiful  sight ;  nowadays  this 
arrangement  is  not  so  prevalent,  and  they  are  usually 
allowed  to  disport  themselves  in  an  open  space  where 
they  play  feeble  games.  On  Sundays  boarders  usually 
join  their  families  or  friends,  so  that  their  sum  total  of 
real  exercise  is  about  two  hours  a  week. 

This  is  a  terrible  state  of  things,  and  it  is  not  extra- 
ordinary that  the  present  generation  of  middle-aged 
Frenchmen  should  be  pale,  obese  and  weakly ;  the 
French  boarding  system  is  a  crime  against  nature  and, 

285 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  late  years,  a  strong  reaction  has  set  in,  without,  how- 
ever, affecting  it  much.  Until  schools  are  built  in  the 
country,  as  they  are  in  Great  Britain,  there  will  be  no 
hope  of  mental  and  physical  health  for  their  un- 
fortunate pupils. 

Among  the  day  boys,  however,  the  fresh-air  move- 
ment has  set  in  with  a  vengeance  and  gains  momentum 
every  day.  Clubs  of  all  sorts  have  been  and  are  being 
formed  ;  tennis  and  cycling  are  easily  the  most  popular 
forms  of  sport  among  the  boys  ;  running,  football,  cricket 
and  hockey  are  also  making  immense  headway,  as  is 
shown  by  the  improving  quality  of  the  French  teams 
that  come  over  to  play  in  this  country.  The  French 
mother,  again  a  fatal  influence  in  this  respect,  is  still  to 
the  fore  with  her  fears  for  the  life  and  limbs  of  her 
darling ;  she  still  shrinks  from  the  idea  that  her  son 
may  risk  a  cold  or  a  touch  of  the  sun,  but  she  is  being 
carried  away  by  the  movement,  and  is  now  often  as 
proud  of  a  challenge  cup  as  of  a  stack  of  prizes. 

As  the  day  boys  probably  outnumber  the  boarders,  a 
large  proportion  of  French  youth  is  thus  being  in- 
fluenced in  a  race-saving  direction ;  for  many  years 
Great  Britain  has  been  fashionable,  and  in  no  way 
more  than  in  sports.  The  French  do  not  yet  take  very 
naturally  to  athletics ;  the  love  of  them  is  an  acquired 
taste  of  which  the  possessors  are  very  conscious  and 
rather  proud,  so  that  team  games  are  still  a  weak 
point.  The  Frenchman  often  excels  in  individual 
sports,  such  as  fencing,  shooting,  running,  sculling,  etc., 
but  his  faculty  of  combination  is  poor,  so  that  French 
football,  rowing  and  cricket  teams  are  still  weak ;  yet 
they  are  improving  considerably,  and  it  is  certain  that 
the  next  twenty  or  thirty  years  will  see  further  im- 

286 


Education 

provement  in  the  national  physique,  which  has  already 
benefited  considerably  from  compulsory  military  train- 
ing. 

The  valuable  influence  of  games  is  partly  traceable  to 
the  participation  in  them  of  the  masters ;  this  custom 
does  not  prevail  in  France,  where  professors  are  usually 
unfit  for  anything  more  than  a  constitutional  and  are 
too  keenly  penetrated  by  the  consciousness  of  their 
importance  as  officials  to  unbend  to  such  an  extent. 
Their  influence  in  the  school  suffers  from  this  fact,  but 
this  they  hardly  realise  as  they  never  attempt  to  form 
character,  but  confine  themselves  to  teaching.  There  is 
no  such  thing  in  France  as  mental  training ;  a  boy  may 
be  dirty  or  a  liar  and  will  be  punished  for  his  misdeeds, 
but  he  will  not  be  pilloried  before  his  fellows  as  he 
would  be  in  Great  Britain.  There  is  no  reformative 
action  ;  rules  are  applied  as  is  the  Law,  justly  enough  but 
rigidly.  This  is  obviously  a  vicious  system,  as  the  object 
of  the  Law  is,  as  yet,  to  restrain  the  evildoer,  whilst  that 
of  school  regulations  should  be  to  reform  him. 

It  follows  that  such  offences  as  the  above  do  not 
awake  the  reprobation  that  they  arouse  in  British  schools ; 
public  opinion  among  boys  takes  its  tone  from  the 
master,  so  that  in  French  schools  no  boy  is  disgraced  if 
he  lie  in  self-defence.  Should  he  tell  the  truth  he  may 
not  be  believed  and  may  have  to  prove  his  statements, 
when  he  may  be  punished  unjustly  if  the  evidence  he 
adduces  be  insufficient.  It  is  very  unusual  for  a  master 
to  "  put  a  boy  on  his  honour" ;  he  will  rather  apply  to 
him  the  cross-examining  methods  of  a  prosecuting 
counsel,  in  response  to  which  the  boy  naturally  develops 
an  appalling  degree  of  mendacious  ingenuity.  More- 
over, in  his  thirst  for  a  conviction,  the  master  will  often 

287 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
stoop  to  tolerating  delation  ;  the  sneak  is  hated  in 
France  as  in  Great  Britain,  but  whereas  in  this  country 
he  would  be  thrashed  by  the  boys  at  once  and  by  the 
master  at  the  next  opportunity,  in  France  he  will  often 
find  favour  in  the  eyes  of  the  master  whose  tool  he  is. 

It  should  not  be  concluded  that  these  rather  luridly 
painted  evils  prevail  in  all  French  schools  ;  the  tone  has 
improved  of  late  years,  probably  thanks  to  the  increasing 
influence  of  games,  but  there  is  still  a  great  deal  of 
scope  for  reform.  Submission  to  the  umpire  (which  is 
far  from  being  as  general  as  in  this  country),  fair  play  as 
against  sharp  practice,  and  generally  improved  health 
are  working  wonders  with  the  French  character  and 
will  in  time  profoundly  modify  the  school  system  ;  com- 
plete reform  cannot,  however,  be  hoped  for  until  the 
schools  are  removed  to  the  country,  a  consummation 
not  yet  in  sight. 

To  sum  up,  it  will  suffice  to  emphasise  the  fact  that 
French  schools  are  only  partly  schools ;  they  teach  the 
boy  as  much  as  he  needs  and  more,  but  they  do  not 
train  his  character  any  more  than  they  develop  his 
body.  Natural  evolution  is  slowly  doing  this  portion  of 
their  work,  and  it  is  within  the  bounds  of  possibility 
that  they  may  eventually  follow  the  movement  and  live 
up  to  their  full  purpose  of  teaching  the  boy  the  art  of 
complete  living  by  developing  to  the  fullest,  not  only 
his  brain,  but  also  his  soul  and  his  body. 


CHAPTER   XIV 
THE    DRAMA 

IT  may,  at  first  sight,  appear  singular  that  an  entire 
chapter  should  be  devoted  to  the  influence  of  the 
drama ;  this  very  fact  shows  the  necessity  for  it,  as  such 
an  impression  is  exactly  illustrative  of  the  British  atti- 
tude towards  the  Stage,  We  do  not  take  it  seriously 
and  yet  it  is  essentially  earnest,  replete  with  possibilities 
and  capable  of  exercising  considerable  influence  on  men 
and  their  actions. 

We  must,  of  course,  admit  that  there  is  drama  and 
drama  and  that  there  exists  an  impassable  gulf  between, 
say  Ibsen,  and  the  various  "  Girls "  by  whom  we  are 
faced  regularly  every  season.  We  must  begin  with 
definitions  and  make  up  our  minds,  either  that  the 
theatre  is  intended  to  depict  life  or  that  its  powers  must 
be  exclusively  devoted  to  the  entertaining  of  our  eyes 
and  ears.  Entertainments  based  on  unreality,  however 
pleasant  they  may  be,  are  not  drama  in  the  true  sense, 
any  more  than  impossible  colour  or  impossible  lines 
can  hope  to  produce  a  work  of  art. 

True  drama  is  the  photographic  and  phonographic 
expression  of  possible,  preferably  of  probable,  events  ; 
either  it  must  be  absolutely  faithful  to  reality  and  leave 
the  spectator  to  draw  his  own  conclusions  or  it  must 
expound  a  theory  from  which,  by  means  of  the  conflict 
U  289 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  characters,  the  playwright  causes  a  lesson  to  emerge. 
Of  the  first  class  are  the  plays  of  Aristophanes,  of 
Plautus,  of  Moliere,  while  to  the  second  belong  such 
plays  as  those  of  Brieux  and  Bernard  Shaw. 

At  the  present  time,  the  drama  is,  on  the  Continent 
of  Europe,  a  powerful  force  because  the  people  look 
upon  it,  not  only  as  a  means  of  employing  their  leisure, 
but  as  an  educational  and  an  ethical  medium.  No 
theory  is  too  wild,  no  proposal  too  far-fetched  to  be 
refused  a  hearing  if  the  play  be  interesting  and  its 
construction  and  plot  true  to  life ;  the  acting  attains, 
as  a  rule,  so  high  a  pitch  of  excellence  that  even  an 
inferior  play  becomes  acceptable  whilst  a  great  drama 
at  once  makes  a  very  forcible  appeal  to  the  mind. 
Thus  the  Stage  is  not  only  a  means  of  entertainment 
but  it  is  the  rostrum  where  views  are  aired,  theories 
discussed  and  movements  born  ;  as  in  the  days  of  the 
Greeks  it  is  a  political  platform  and  a  pulpit  from  which 
the  sternest  lessons  are  as  favourably  received  as  are 
the  most  merry  triflings.  In  Russia,  in  Germany, 
Austria,  Sweden,  to  name  but  the  chief  countries  be- 
sides France,  the  names  of  Gorki,  Tolstoi,  Suderman, 
Hauptmann,  Bjornson,  at  once  conjure  up  daring  plays 
which  lay  bare  the  horror  of  social  conditions,  the 
sufferings  of  the  oppressed,  the  blind  strivings  of  the 
soul  enmeshed  in  the  toils  of  passion,  the  struggles  of 
the  individual  with  Fate,  with  his  own  desires,  or  with 
those  of  his  fellows. 

A  foreign  play  usually  stimulates  thought  in  the 
spectator  and  induces  him  to  examine  his  life  and 
search  his  own  being ;  it  makes  known  to  him  the  evil 
of  the  world,  and  presents  him  with  schemes  for  its 
reformation.     It  "agitates  ideas,"  to  translate  literally 

290 


The   Drama 

a  terse  French  saying.  Such  is  notoriously  not  the 
case  in  Great  Britain,  where  the  attitude  of  the  playgoer 
is  above  all  the  manifestation  of  a  desire  to  escape  from 
life  ;  whether  this  be  traceable  to  a  somewhat  maligned 
climate,  which  causes  the  worker  to  sigh  for  gaiety  at 
the  expense  of  truth,  to  innate  frivolity  or  to  sheer 
laziness  of  mind,  I  do  not  profess  to  say,  but  the  fact 
remains  that  the  British  drama,  taken  as  a  whole,  cannot 
compare  in  intellectual  value  with  that  of  the  principal 
European  nations. 

A  section  of  the  critics  is  well  aware  of  this ;  such 
men  as  Mr.  J,  T.  Grein  and  Mr.  Max  Beerbohm  have 
long  twanged  the  lyre  dolorous,  without  appreciably 
influencing  the  all -conquering  actor -manager.  The 
British  drama  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  American 
trusts  and  actors  with  a  taste  for  business,  who  wage 
energetic  war  over  its  prostrate  body.  Once  degraded 
to  the  level  of  purely  business  enterprise,  the  drama  has 
gone  from  bad  to  worse ;  keen  competition,  on  the  one 
hand,  has  resulted  in  too  many  theatres  being  built, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  large  interests  that  back 
them  have  found  it  advantageous  to  expend  enormous 
sums  on  advertising  and  staging,  irrespective  of  the 
value  of  the  plays  which  they  produce.  Thus,  the 
public  has  been  spoiled ;  it  has  been  led  to  expect 
magnificent  costumes  and  scenery  and  taught  to  con- 
tent itself  with  these;  public  taste  has  been  depraved 
and  its  attention  distracted  from  the  drama  itself;  it 
has  forgotten  that  "  the  play's  the  thing "  and  has 
learned  to  appreciate  a  husk  that  has  lost  its  kernel. 

The  actor-manager  is  equally  to  blame ;  not  only  is 
his  chief  object  to  make  money,  but  his  love  of  picture 
post-card  notoriety  tends  to  make  him  produce  plays 

291 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  which  he  can  appropriate  all  the  "  fat,"  assisted  as 
he  is  by  utterly  incompetent  companies.  The  British 
playgoer  no  longer  asks  :  Have  you  been  to  this  play? 
but :  Have  you  "  been "  to  Lewis  Waller  or  George 
Alexander  or  Tree  ?  as  the  case  may  be.  Indeed  it  does 
not  need  a  very  great  stretch  of  the  imagination  to 
liken  popular  drama  to  the  music-hall  "turn,"  the 
merit  of  which  exists  only  thanks  to  the  ability  of  the 
performer. 

It  may  be  said  that  managers  and  syndicates  give 
the  public  what  it  demands  and  that  they  are  not  to 
blame  because  popular  taste  is  low  or  corrupt,  but  the 
public  accepts  in  the  main  that  which  is  offered  to  it, 
and  nowhere  does  it  more  submissively  bow  to  the  dicta 
of  its  favourites  than  it  does  in  this  country.  By 
establishing  a  low  intellectual  standard  a  low  class  of 
playgoer  is  attracted  in  shoals,  and,  by  dint  of  numbers, 
it  influences  the  management ;  this  statement  may 
appear  to  contradict  the  previous  one,  but  both  are  true 
and  operate  simultaneously :  the  lower  the  standard, 
the  lower  is  the  class  from  which  patrons  are  drawn, 
and  the  more  inferior  the  patrons,  the  more  inferior  the 
standard  of  plays  becomes.  As  a  natural  result,  vul- 
garity and  puerility  are  on  the  increase,  arrested  occa- 
sionally by  a  reaction  or  emphasised  by  such  brilliant 
exceptions  as  those  which  we  shall  notice  further  on. 

The  musical  comedy  has  so  often  been  the  butt  of 
the  conscientious  critic  that  one  hesitates  to  slay  the 
slain  ;  it  is  usually  neither  musical  nor  a  comedy,  but 
a  hotchpotch  of  inconsequence  intermingled  with  tunes 
that  emerge  from  past  musical  comedies  with  the  regu- 
larity of  a  recurring  decimal.  Such,  with  gorgeous 
plays  selected  mainly  with  a  view  to  their  scenic  possi- 


\J)^' 


The    Drama 


bilities,  is  the  usual  fare  of  the  playgoer,  who  thus 
becomes  unfitted  for  the  least  serious  of  serious  plays. 

With  the  exception  of  Shakespeare,  and  the  excep- 
tion is  due  mainly  to  the  business  ability  of  Mr.  Beer- 
bohm  Tree,  serious  plays  are  impossible  in  London,  as 
regards  the  general  public.  The  latter  does  not  want 
to  go  to  the  theatre  to  be  lectured  nor  does  it  want  to 
think  ;  in  fact  its  dominant  desire  appears  to  be  for 
protection  against  the  slightest  intellectual  exertion. 
Provided  the  actors  be  popular  and  the  plot  based  on 
action  only  and  not  on  theories,  the  play  will  be  suc- 
cessful; moral,  social  or  political  issues  so  effectually 
damn  a  play  that  a  leading  manager  will  hardly  stage 
it.  There  is  little  sign  of  a  reaction.  The  Messrs. 
Vedrenne  and  Barker^  have  produced,  during  the  last 
few  years,  a  group  of  plays  exceeding  in  intellectual 
value  the  output  of  several  decades,  but  their  success 
has  been  only  partial.  The  "Court"  has,  of  course, 
attracted  the  Intellectuals  and  the  cranks  who  invari- 
ably follow  in  their  train  :  it  has  also  touched  the  fringe 
of  "  Society  "  and  has  become  fashionable,  but  I  doubt 
whether  the  general  public  has  been  involved  in  the 
movement.  In  a  broader  form  "  The  Court"  has  only 
extended  the  traditions  of  the  Stage  Society,  the 
Pioneers,  the  Elizabethan  Stage  Society,  etc.,  and  it  is 
not  likely  to  exert  very  much  influence  upon  our 
national  attitude. 

We  might  well,  after  this  disquisition,  dismiss  the 
French  Stage  with  the  remark  that  we  have  only  to 
contradict  all  that  has  just  been  said,  and  that  then  its 
characteristics  will  be  at  once  understood.  Of  course, 
not  all  plays  produced  in  France  are  serious  ;  far  from 

^  At  the  Court  Theatre  and  at  the  Savoy  Theatre. 
293 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
it  !  Every  day  comedies  and  farces  are  produced, 
which  are  broadly  humorous,  satirical  or  semi-serious. 
Their  authors  have  no  axe  to  grind,  and  they  are 
roughly  comparable  with  the  comedies  of  Oscar  Wilde, 
Pinero  or  Captain  Marshall ;  we  must  make  allowances 
for  the  somewhat  laxer  tendencies  of  the  French  and 
the  benevolence  of  the  authorities  who  tolerate  the 
depiction  of  a  moral  standard  undreamt  of  here.  With 
these  plays  we  are  not  concerned,  as  their  object  is 
purely  to  entertain  and  they  are  common  to  both  coun- 
tries ;  the  difference  appears  when  we  consider  the 
serious  plays  that  are  so  successful  in  France. 

Serious  plays,  in  France,  naturally  fall  into  three 
classes  :  political,  social  and  moral.  Political  plays  are 
every  day  more  frequent,  and  are  usually  written  in  a 
bitter  partisan  spirit ;  occasionally  a  wit  pokes  elaborate 
and  pungent  fun  at  the  political  machine  itself  but,  as 
a  rule,  one  party  is  pilloried  and  another  glorified. 
Such  questions  as  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Socialists,  the 
selfishness  of  the  bourgeois  parties  and  the  mock 
heroics  of  Orleanism  are  popular  topics  and  attract 
large  audiences ;  as  a  result,  interest  in  politics  is 
quickened,  and  public  opinion  is  educated,  if  the  play- 
goers be  sufficiently  eclectic.  It  is  by  no  means  un- 
usual to  see  the  stage  turned  into  impromptu  hustings 
for  an  entire  act,  while  the  plot  is  thrust  into  the  back- 
ground and  opinions  ventilated  and  sometimes  so 
violently  attacked  and  defended  as  to  draw  the  audi- 
ence into  conflict.  It  may  be  argued  that  this  is  hardly 
drama,  but  that  no  realist  will  admit,  for  all  things  that 
are  true  and  worth  seeing  are  well  worthy  of  the  stage. 

It  is  impossible  to  quote  many  plays  in  this  chapter, 
but  some  titles  and  a  short  account  of  a  few  plays  will 

294 


The  Drama 

show  to  what  extent  the  political  interest  succeeds  in 
drawing  and  retaining  large  audiences.  For  instance, 
La  Vie  Publique^  explains  itself;  it  reveals  with  pitiless 
truthfulness  and  accuracy  to  what  extent  a  desire  for 
political  power  and  renown  may  deprave  the  man  who 
is  its  victim.  La  Vie  Publique  shows  us  the  would-be 
politician  ready  to  promise  the  impossible,  to  lie,  to 
deceive  without  a  moment's  thought ;  above  all  it 
demonstrates  how  even  the  honest  man  is  drawn  into 
the  net  and  unconsciously  gives  way  to  the  nefarious 
influence  of  his  craving  for  office,  to  which  he  is  at  last 
ready  to  sacrifice  his  honour,  his  most  elementary 
principles,  his  own  happiness  and  that  of  those  who 
once  were  dear  to  him.  It  is  a  cruel  satire,  but  it  con- 
tributes powerfully  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  public  and 
to  put  it  on  its  guard  against  enthusiasm  in  a  poor 
cause. 

La  Vie  Publique  is  a  general  attack,  but  most  political 
plays  aim  at  a  particular  party  ;  their  production  has 
been,  of  late  years,  powerfully  stimulated  by  the 
Dreyfus  case  and  its  developments.  A  notable  example 
is  Le  Retour  de  Jerusalem}  which  shows  us  a  daughter 
of  the  Jewish  race  at  first  attempting  to  abandon  her 
people,  evolving  towards  Christianity,  merging  herself 
in  the  Catholic  world  of  the  French  aristocracy  and 
upper  middle  class  ;  cunningly,  then,  heredity  and  some 
incomprehensible  racial  force  draws  her  back  and  casts 
her  back  into  the  arms  of  her  own  race,  devoid  of 
patriotic  feeling,  alone  and  wandering  for  ever.  Painful 
as  is  such  a  tale  of  a  struggling  personality,  it  puts 
in  a  nutshell  the  Jewish  problem,  perpetual  and  perhaps 
insoluble  ;  it  shows  how  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  it 

^  Public  Life.  ^  The  Return  from  Jerusalem. 

29  ■) 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

is  for  the  Christian  world  to  assimilate  the  Jews,  so 
long  as  they  remain  in  proud  isolation,  intermarrying 
among  themselves  and  constituting  a  nation  in  a  nation, 
wherever  they  may  be  born. 

Another  notable  play  should  be  mentioned,  more 
especially  because  it  is  an  answer  to  Le  Retour  de  Jeru- 
salem and  thus  demonstrates  to  what  extent  the  stage 
has  become  a  platform  for  the  reading  of  political 
tracts.  Decadence  shows  us  the  Reactionary  Catholic 
nobility,  slowly  losing  ground  in  the  country,  its  ambi- 
tions becoming  puny  and  impoverished,  its  name  sold 
to  shady  financiers  and  its  children  to  Jewish  parvenus. 
Painful  and  unpleasant?  No  doubt,  but  the  indictment 
is  true  and  therefore  worthy  of  being  proclaimed  for  all 
men  to  hear. 

The  political  influence  of  the  Stage  is  perhaps  greater 
than  that  of  literature  ;  not  only  does  a  successful  play 
reach  a  hundred  thousand  minds  for  a  book's  few  thou- 
sands, but  it  presents  the  case  more  vividly  and,  where  the 
printed  page  would  fail,  convinces  with  a  gesture.  This 
accounts  for  the  success  of  such  plays  as  La  Guerre  au 
Village}  where  religious  persecution  of  the  freethinker 
is  shown  in  its  most  acute  form  ;  Ces  Messieurs^  in 
which  something  is  revealed  of  the  political  manoeuv- 
ring of  prelacy,  of  its  meannesses  and  its  immorality, 
and  that  in  highly  coloured  pictures  ;  Biribi^  in  which 
we  are  invited  to  witness  the  horrors  of  a  military  penal 
colony.  All  these  subjects  are  painful  and,  in  England, 
would  never  be  put  on  the  stage ;  can  it  be  denied  that 
we  are  missing  great  opportunities  of  "  agitating  ideas  " 

^  War  in  the  Village.  ^  These  Gentlemen  ! 

^  A  slang  name  for  the  African  corps  in  which  felons  and  incorrigibles 
are  interned, 

296 


The   Drama 

and  that  the  sores  of  our  social  system  would  be  more 
easy  to  heal  if  the  crude  glare  of  the  footlights  were  to 
illumine  them  ? 

That  nothing  is  too  cruel  or  too  repulsive  to  be  repre- 
sented is  demonstrated  by  the  success  of  the  social  and 
moral  plays  which,  even  more  than  those  dealing  with 
political  subjects,  are  favoured  by  French  playwrights. 
They  almost  invariably  contain  a  thesis  which  the 
author  defends  ;  he  weaves  a  clever  plot  and  embodies 
in  it  the  vicious  social  conditions,  for  which  he  some- 
times suggests  a  remedy,  but  which  he  more  often  leaves 
to  ferment  in  the  mind  of  his  hearers  so  that  personal 
opinion  may  do  its  work.  These  plays  usually  deal 
with  the  relations  of  the  individual  or  of  certain  classes 
to  Society,  and  develop  pitilessly  the  effects  of  laws  and 
customs  on  the  happiness  of  the  people.  These  plays 
are  so  numerous  that  one  despairs  of  giving  an  idea  of 
their  scope  ;  foremost  stand  the  achievements  of  Brieux, 
the  most  incisive  and  profound  of  living  French  play- 
wrights. In  Maternite}  he  shows  us  the  individual 
struggling  with  Life  to  provide  for  his  progeny,  crushed 
under  the  burden,  faced  by  the  hypocrisy  of  the  State 
that  urges  him  to  rear  a  family  and  presses  upon  him 
ever  more  ruthlessly  as  he  obeys  its  commands ;  in 
La  Robe  Rouge^  Brieux  gives  us  an  insight  into  the 
iniquity  of  secret  legal  proceedings ;  in  Les  Reni- 
pla^nntes^  into  the  frivolity  and  selfishness  of  modern 
mothers,  the  dangers  that  they  cause  their  children  to 
run  at  the  hands  of  hired  wet-nurses,  their  brutal  in- 
difference to  the  fate  of  the  offspring  of  the  latter ;  in 
Les  Avaries,^  he  does  not  even  shrink  from  showing  us 

1  Maternity.  2  The  Red  Robe  (The  Arm  of  the  Law). 

^  Substitutes.  *  Tainted. 

297 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

the  peril  of  over-tolerant  laws,  which  allow  those 
afflicted  with  the  worst  scourge  known  to  medicine 
to  marry  and  hand  on  the  curse. 

Of  all  these  things  we  sometimes  talk  covertly,  but 
we  refuse  to  face  the  evil  openly,  so  that  public  opinion 
remains  half  ignorant  and  careless  and  reform  is  in- 
definitely delayed.  Does  not  the  French  attitude  in 
this  respect  make  for  honesty  and  courage  ?  All  sub- 
jects are  within  the  purview  of  the  French  playwright. 
In  Retour  des  Coiirses}  we  are  shown  the  social  results  of 
the  betting  evil ;  in  U Armature^  the  dominating  power 
of  money ;  in  Les  Ventres  Doresf  the  ugliness  and 
shadiness  of  Stock  Exchange  traffic ;  in  Les  Tenailles,^ 
the  iniquity  of  divorce  laws  which  unduly  favour  one 
sex. 

Thus  social  evils  are  laid  bare  and,  from  the  stage, 
with  far  more  force  than  from  the  most  famous  pulpits, 
comes  the  cry  :  Cure !  Cure  !  To  waste  the  stage  is  to 
waste  a  force ;  I  do  not  say  that  we  should  go  to 
dramatists  for  the  solution  of  social  evils,  but  we  should 
go  to  them  to  hear  the  sins  of  Society  denounced,  as 
we  go  to  church  to  behold  our  own.  It  is  good  that 
we  should  see  and  have  thrust  upon  us  the  evil  condi- 
tions under  which  modern  systems  admittedly  groan, 
for  by  those  means  only  can  public  opinion  be  aroused. 
It  is  good  that  Hauptmann  should  show  us  in  Die 
Weber^  the  sufferings  of  the  classes  that  Society  treads 
down,  for  thus  and  thus  only  can  be  aroused  in  us  the 
holy  indignation  and  the  lofty  idealism  that  lie  at  the 
root  of  all  reform,  social,  moral  or  political. 

^  Home  from  the  Races  (all  the  winners  !). 

"  The  Backbone.  ^  Roughly,  "Guinea-pigs." 

*  Say,  "The  Shackles."  ^  The  Weavers. 

298 


The  Drama 

All  this  applies  with  equal  force  to  plays  dealing  with 
moral  subjects,  if  we  distinguish  between  "  social "  as 
affecting  classes  or  the  cosmos  and  "moral"  as  concern- 
ing more  directly  the  problems  that  confront  the  indi- 
vidual. This  kind  of  play  is  more  popular  still  than  the 
two  preceding  classes.  More  often  than  not  it  is  founded 
on  the  problems  of  marriage  and  of  sex  generally ; 
there  is  no  Censor  in  France,  and  the  authorities  are 
very  broad-minded  and  permit  the  discussion  of  subjects 
and  situations  which  would  be  tabooed  in  Great  Britain. 
I  do  not  profess  to  decide  whether  we  are  more 
squeamish  than  the  French  or  simply  more  hypocritical, 
but  would  only  say  that  intercourse  with  individuals 
seems  to  show  that  we  are  ignorant  rather  than  indif- 
ferent in  regard  to  these  questions.  The  French  have 
gone  to  the  other  extreme,  and  rather  revel  in  analysis 
and  sub-analysis  of  hypothetical  situations  concerned 
with  marriage,  irregular  alliances  and  heredity ;  the 
tendency  is  somewhat  morbid  and  its  satisfaction  does 
not  appreciably  make  for  the  solution  of  personal  diffi- 
culties, owing  to  their  infinite  variety. 

"Moral"  plays,  however,  give  "furiously  to  think"  and 
that,  in  itself,  is  not  a  negligible  point ;  moreover,  they 
have  absorbed  a  great  part  of  the  energies  of  such  well- 
known  writers  as,  for  example,  Brieux,  Mirbeau, 
Lavedan,  etc.,  so  that  some  of  the  best-known  instances 
should  also  be  quoted.  Les  Affaires  sont  les  Affaires} 
by  Octave  Mirbeau,  depicts  for  our  benefit  the  super- 
man of  affairs,  ruthless  and  all-dominating,  practically 
careless  of  personal  honour,  indifferent  to  family  dis- 
aster, absorbed  wholly  by  his  money-making  passion 
and  above  all  by  his   lust  for  power.      In  Blanchette, 

^  Business  is  Business. 
299 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

practically  a  "  social "  play,  Brieux  shows  us  the  results 
of  rising  too  rapidly  from  one's  class ;  his  heroine,  the 
daughter  of  peasants,  is  artificially  forced  up  by  educa- 
tion, struggles  for  a  living  as  a  teacher  and  barely 
avoids  the  vice  which,  in  a  great  city,  is  ever  so  ready 
to  seize  upon  the  poor  and  the  lonely.  In  Le  Duel} 
a  powerful  play  of  which,  no  more  than  of  Les  Affaires 
sont  les  Affaires  or  La  Robe  Rouge,  we  should  judge  by 
translations  "  suited "  to  British  audiences,  Lavedan 
presents  a  painful  situation  ;  he  compresses  into  four 
acts  the  poignant  struggle  that  rages  in  the  breast  of  the 
priest  between  his  faith  and  the  flesh,  the  everlasting 
conflict  between  mysticism  and  materialism.  In  Les 
Hannetotis^-  the  perils  of  irregular  unions,  in  Paraitre^ 
the  crushing  weight  of  social  pretension,  are  laid  before 
us  so  powerfully  that  we  cannot  pretend  to  be  blind. 

It  would  be  easy  to  quote  innumerable  instances  of 
such  plays,  all  dealing  with  different  problems  and  with 
their  endless  variations ;  but  enough  has  been  said  to 
show  how  firm  a  grasp  the  drama  has  on  the  lives  of 
the  French  people.  Before  dismissing  the  subject,  a 
few  characteristic  points  must,  however,  be  emphasised. 
One  of  the  most  remarkable  is  the  advanced  tendency 
of  many  social  plays  ;  they  are  nearly  always  Socialistic 
and  depict  everyday  evils  with  the  ever-underlying 
suggestion  that  Socialism  would  prove  an  effective  cure. 
Thus  the  Stage  has  become  in  France  one  of  the  most 
effective  means  of  propaganda  for  advanced  schools 
of  thought ;  the  vigour  and  clarity  of  the  French 
language  have  been  enlisted  in  the  cause,  and  it  is  easy 
to  trace  to  this  fact  the  spreading  of  Socialistic  doctrine 

1  The  Duel. 

^  The  Cockchafers  (the  Incubus).        ^  Keeping  up  Appearances. 

300 


The  Drama 

among  the  wealthier  classes.  The  Intellectuels,  of  whom 
mention  has  already  been  made,  are,  as  a  rule,  keenly- 
interested  in  matters  dramatic  and  form  the  more  en- 
thusiastic section  of  Brieux  and  Mirbeau's  audiences. 
Discontent  with  social  conditions  naturally  drives  the 
thinker  into  or  towards  the  Socialist  camp  ;  by  no  more 
potent  means  than  the  drama  can  it  be  hoped  to  reach 
those  who  are  not  in  daily  contact  with  the  vicious  state 
of  things  which  it  reproduces  vividly  before  their 
eyes. 

From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  French  plays  have  yet 
another  characteristic,  viz.  courage,  and  that  to  the 
point  of  rashness.  The  dramatist  stops  at  nothing  ;  he 
deals  with  problems  so  thoroughly  that,  if  necessary, 
he  enlists  the  support  of  science,  anthropological  or 
medical.  Even  before  the  suppression  of  the  Censor,  he 
had  full  latitude,  and  a  serious  play  was  rarely  inter- 
dicted, Les  Avaries  being  a  notable  exception.  It  is 
permissible  to  believe  that,  even  if  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain were  deprived  of  his  powers,  British  dramatists 
would  not  at  the  present  time  make  use  of  their  liberty 
to  the  utmost,  in  the  face  of  public  opinion.  French 
dramatists  know  no  such  scruples  ;  they  are  ready  to 
lay  bare  for  our  inspection  the  most  intimate  scenes  of 
private  life  and  to  discuss  the  thorniest  problems  that 
confront  the  individual.  Such  courage  is  worthy  of 
admiration,  for  contempt  of  Mrs.  Grundy,  when  it  pro- 
ceeds from  earnestness,  necessarily  makes  for  bold 
and  independent  thinking,  and  without  boldness  and 
thoroughness  nothing  can  be  done. 

It  should  be  said  that  French  drama  has  two  im- 
portant advantages,  a  literary  language  and  excellent 
actors.     It  is  a  commonplace  to  remark  that  anything 

30J 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

may  be  said  in  French  and  not  very  much  in  Engh'sh, 
but  it  rests  on  a  basis  of  truth.  A  sentence  which,  in 
English,  can  only  be  described  as  coarse,  can  nearly 
always  be  translated  into  French  that  will  not  make  the 
most  sensitive  wince ;  this  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that 
we  are  accustomed  in  our  horror  of  pedantry  to  limit 
our  vocabulary,  whilst  the  educated  classes  in  France 
never  shrink  from  using  long  words ;  they  do  not  allow 
their  linguistic  arsenal  to  rust,  so  that  the  large  selection 
of  words  to  which  they  are  accustomed  allows  the 
dramatist  to  use  the  most  suitable  and  to  exercise  a  very 
wide  choice.  Moreover,  there  is  a  subtle  quality  in  the 
French  language,  an  indefinably  refined  and  delicate 
something,  which  enables  the  writer  to  be  forcible  with- 
out being  crude. 

The  quality  of  the  acting  is  also  an  important  factor ; 
a  play  may  be  made  or  marred  by  acting  and  many  are, 
in  England,  only  saved  from  failure  by  the  ability  of  a 
single  actor  or  actress.  In  France,  however,  the  art  of 
acting  is  far  more  common  than  in  Great  Britain ;  in 
common  with  most  Latin  peoples,  the  race  possesses 
histrionic  ability,  so  that  it  is  possible  to  form  excellent 
companies,  capable  of  giving  its  full  value  to  every  one 
of  the  playwright's  thoughts.  The  French  Stage  does  not, 
as  yet,  suffer  from  the  evils  of  the  actor-manager  system, 
though  several  leading  French  actors  and  actresses, 
such  as  Gemier,  Rejane  and  Sarah  Bernhardt,  have 
entered  the  ranks  of  management.  The  level  of  acting 
is  still  high  and  shows  no  sign  of  decadence ;  the  official 
school,  the  Conservatoire,  continues  to  train  several 
hundreds  of  pupils  every  year,  so  that  the  French  Stage 
is  not  flooded  as  it  is  in  Great  Britain  with  men  who 
have  found  the  Stock  Exchange  unremunerative  and 

302 


The  Drama 

young  girls  who  sigh  for  emancipation  from  suburban 
dullness.  The  actor  is  also  encouraged  by  short  runs ; 
a  hundred  nights  being  looked  upon  as  excellent,  he  is 
enabled  to  create  a  greater  number  of  parts  ;  nothing  is 
more  numbing  than  the  system  which  causes  men  to 
specialise,  however  excellent  the  results  produced  may 
be.  In  France,  Mr.  O.  B.  Clarence  and  Mr.  Fisher 
White  would  not  be  everlastingly  old  nor  Mr.  Eric 
Lewis  perpetually  affable  and  dictatorial ;  they  would 
be  expected  to  display  far  more  versatility  and  to 
impersonate  not  only  a  Romeo  but  a  Caliban,  a  Napo- 
leon or  a  Svengali. 

Endowed  with  all  these  advantages,  French  drama 
should  assuredly  flourish  and  extend  its  scope ;  there 
are  no  signs  that  it  is  losing  its  popularity ;  indeed  it  is 
daily  taking  a  firmer  hold  of  the  people  and  influencing 
their  mental  attitude.  Not  only  does  the  need  for  relax- 
ation grow  daily  as  activity  increases,  but  the  Stage  is 
admittedly  becoming  more  and  more  an  educational 
medium.  Actors  and  actresses  have  not  entirely  cleared 
themselves  of  the  stigma  attached  to  them  in  the  past 
by  ecclesiastical  authorities,  but  they  are  daily  affirming 
their  status,  entering  the  ranks  of  the  Ligion  d' Honrieur 
and,  a  more  difficult  feat,  "  solid  "  French  society,  which 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  "  smart "  section. 

The  only  source  of  danger  for  the  French  Stage  is  the 
tendency  displayed  by  certain  writers  of  pseudo-serious 
plays  to  become  too  obviously  pornographic ;  it  is  not 
desirable  that  anything  should  be  hidden,  however 
horrible,  if  the  revelation  is  to  be  useful  and  to  militate  in 
favour  of  a  cure,  but  it  would  be  injurious  for  the  pro- 
spects of  French  drama  if  science  were  to  become  the 
handmaid  of  prurient  curiosity.     In  all  matters  that  are 

303 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

laid  before  the  public  it  is  always  difficult  to  distinguish 
between  scientific  and  morbid  interest;  individuals  often 
conceal  unhealthy  instincts  by  affecting  an  interest  in 
biology,  a  remark  which  is  also  applicable  to  audiences. 
The  French  Stage  certainly  sails  very  near  the  wind 
and  sometimes  goes  too  far,  when  it  loses  sight  of  utility 
and  lays  before  us  unsavoury  stories  the  telling  of  which 
benefits  no  man. 

However,  if  we  consider  French  drama  as  a  whole,  we 
cannot  but  conclude  that  it  is  great  in  social  potentiali- 
ties. It  has,  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  quickened  the 
interest  of  the  people  in  social  and  political  matters,  and 
is  every  day  contributing  to  the  formation  of  vigorous 
public  opinion.  In  Great  Britain  the  popular  mind  is 
apparently  more  easily  moved  by  literature  (perhaps  be- 
cause there  is  no  censor  of  books),  which  accounts  for 
the  influence  attributed  to  works  such  as  Nicholas 
Nickleby,  The  Song  of  the  Shirt  or  No.  5  John  Street ;  in 
France,  though  literature  is  also  a  powerful  force,  the 
drama  spreads  a  gospel  of  high  ideals  and  assists  the 
evolution  of  Society  towards  a  better  state,  political, 
social  and  moral. 


304 


CHAPTER   XV 
THE  FRENCH   WOMAN 

TO  say  that  woman  is  a  powerful  influence  in  the 
State  is  surely  a  truism  ;  her  action  is  subtle  and 
slow  but  it  is  none  the  less  potent,  perhaps  even  all  the 
more  so.  Slowly  she  shapes  to  her  point  of  view  the 
family  and  sometimes  the  class,  so  that  she  indirectly 
modifies  the  attitude  of  the  body  politic  on  sex  lines, 
which  men  are  given  to  ignoring.  I  am  aware  that 
militant  supporters  of  woman's  suffrage  contend  that 
legislation  does  proceed  on  sex  lines  and  that  it  is  con- 
ducted for  man's  advantage ;  it  is  unnecessary  to  touch 
here  upon  the  sinister  designs  that  are  thus  attributed  to 
the  male  sex,  nor  is  it  desirable  to  attempt  to  demon- 
strate either  the  necessity  or  the  futility  of  legislating 
for  the  purpose  of  removing  sex  disabilities.  Irrespec- 
tive of  the  question  of  votes,  woman  has  always  exer- 
cised her  power,  particularly  with  regard  to  education, 
hours  of  labour  and  medical  questions. 

These  remarks  apply  to  women  in  all  civilised  coun- 
tries, but  their  influence  varies  in  degree  and  in  nature 
according  to  national  characteristics ;  thus,  in  Great 
Britain,  their  energies  appear  concerned  rather  with  the 
displacement  of  a  party  for  the  benefit  of  another  than 
with  the  prosecution  of  a  particular  reform.  Setting 
aside  the  intellectual  exceptions  from  among  whom  are 
X  305 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century j^ 

recruited  some  remarkably  vigorous  temperance  re- 
formers, anti-vivisectionists,  Free-Traders,  Protectionists, 
etc.,  we  find  the  bulk  utterly  indifferent  to  politics  and 
neglectful  of  the  exercise  of  their  influence.  Such  is 
also  the  case  in  France,  where  politics  are  voted  dull  by 
the  majority  of  women,  unless  they  belong  to  the  dis- 
affected sections  and  make  a  hobby  of  stillborn  plots. 

The  political  influence  of  women  in  France  is  there- 
fore, in  the  aggregate,  no  more  noteworthy  than  it  is  in 
Great  Britain ;  indeed  France  cannot  boast  of  such 
energetic  organisations  as  the  Primrose  League,  the 
Women's  Free  Trade  Council,  etc.  There  are  no 
political  hostesses  whose  receptions  arc  regularly  an- 
nounced in  the  Press,  no  canvassers  at  elections,  no 
women  members  on  the  boards  of  local  authorities. 
Any  influence  that  the  French  woman  wields  proceeds 
from  her  personal  characteristics,  which  are  very  strik- 
ing and  mark  her  out  at  once  from  among  women  of  all 
races.  If  there  be  such  things  as  national  peculiarities, 
they  are  certainly  found  in  a  very  pronounced  form  in 
the  French  woman,  and  this  goes  very  far  towards  ex- 
plaining the  esteem  in  which  she  is  held. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten,  in  the  first  instance,  that 
the  French  woman  must  not  be  confounded  with  the 
Parisienne  or  with  what  is  generally  considered  to  be 
the  Parisienne.  I  do  not  pretend  that  generalisation 
is  justifiable  even  as  regards  the  female  inhabitants  of 
Paris,  but  if  we  understand  by  Parisienne  the  type  that 
is  commonly  described  by  the  vv'ord,  we  find  that  she 
differs  in  notable  respects  from  the  typical  French 
woman.  Generally  speaking  it  is  always  imprudent  to 
judge  the  inhabitants  of  any  country  by  those  of  the 
metropolis ;    Paris   is   no   exception,  and   there  exists 

306 


/ 

The  French  Woman 

apparently  as  great  a  gap  between  its  inhabitants  and 
those  of  the  rest  of  France  as  between  those  of  London 
and  of  the  provinces. 

Paris,  as  a  city  of  superficial  luxury  set  in  a  land 
where  pageantry  is  a  tradition,  has  influenced  the 
people  of  France  and  particularly  the  wealthier  feminine 
section.  Thus  we  have  acquired  the  idea  that  the 
French  woman  is  invariably  immoral  and  that  her  ideals 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  art  of  perfect  dressing.  We 
must  not  be  led  away  into  accepting  as  representative 
types  the  specimens  of  the  gens  chics^  who  occasionally 
visit  London  or  who  may  be  seen  by  the  casual  tourist 
flaunting  it  in  the  Avenue  des  Acacias.  To  take  this 
type  of  Parisienne  as  the  representative  of  the  French 
woman  would  be  as  unfair  as  to  judge  America  by  the 
"  Newport  Set "  or  England  by  the  *'  Upper  Ten." 

The  Parisienne  of  the  over-dressed,  tight-laced  type, 
whose  audacious  millinery  and  high  -  pitched  voice 
amaze  the  stolid  Briton,  is  an  exception  and  therefore 
thoroughly  unimportant ;  our  plays  and  our  novels, 
whenever  they  have  to  do  with  her,  contrive  to  harrow 
our  feelings  with  the  revelation  of  her  dressmaker's 
bills  and  the  details  of  her  visits  to  Cythera,  but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  she  is  one  in  a  thousand  and  it  is 
with  the  remaining  nine  hundred  *and  ninety-nine  that 
we  are  concerned. 

In  France,  more  than  in  any  other  country,  we  must 
seek  for  general  impressions  among  the  middle  classes, 
for  this  part  of  the  community  is  proportionately  more 
numerous  than  in  other  parts  of  Western  Europe 
owing  to  the  spread  of  education  and  comfort.  It 
should  be  noted  also  that,  among  the  working  classes, 

'  The  "smart  set." 
307 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

women  are  usually  superior  to  their  masculine  asso- 
ciates. They  are  naturally  more  refined,  and  hardly 
ever  give  way  to  drink  ;^  their  general  characteristics 
also  tend  to  raise  them  still  further. 

If  we  accept  the  middle  classes  as  that  from  which 
we  must  draw  our  conclusions,  the  charges  of  frivolity 
and  immorality  fall  to  the  ground.  M.  Brieux  has 
lately  dealt  with  the  latter  question  in  a  successful 
play,  La  Franqaise,  where,  curiously  enough,  we  are 
shown  the  discomfiture  of  an  amorous  Anglo-Saxon,  a 
victim  of  hearsay  and  of  hasty  generalisation.  This 
question  is  dealt  with  more  fully  in  the  chapter  con- 
cerned with  marriage  in  France,  so  that  it  will  suffice 
to  state  here  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  more 
placidly  virtuous  type  than  the  middle-class  French 
wife.  Indeed,  if  anything  need  be  said  on  the  subject, 
it  is  not  impossible  that  the  French  attitude  in  this 
respect  is  stricter  than  that  of  other  nations  where 
the  appearances  of  respectability  are  so  successfully 
kept  up. 

As  regards  frivolity  and  the  inordinate  craving  for 
fine  clothes,  which  are  supposed  to  be  deeply  im- 
planted in  every  French  woman,  the  tu  qiioque  is  not 
very  difficult  to  establish.  With  respect  to  frivolity, 
a  short  stay  in  France  will  demonstrate  that  the  desire 
for  diversion  is  far  less  pronounced  in  all  classes  than 
it  is  in  Great  Britain,  and  that  this  applies  to  Paris  as 
opposed  to  London.  A  more  thoroughly  stolid  and 
stay-at-home  class  than  the  French  bourgeoisie  I  can- 
not conceive ;  the  theatre-going  of  the  average  London 

^  I  can  testify  personally  to  this,  as  I  can  only  recollect  witnessing 
one  case  of  drunkenness  among  women  in  France  in  a  little  under 
twenty  years. — W.  L.  G. 

308 


The  French  Woman 

girl  in  every  month  probably  equals  that  of  a  similarly 
placed  Parisienne  for  a  year.  Our  impression  that 
restaurant  dining  is  a  feature  of  French  life,  is  another 
fallacy  of  which  a  short  stay  in  France  would  soon 
dispose. 

Extravagance  in  dress  is  of  course  the  main  accusa- 
tion levelled  at  the  French  woman  and  that,  in  all 
likelihood,  because  she  is  nearly  always  better  clothed 
at  a  smaller  cost  than  her  foreign  sisters.  Because  she 
has  achieved  elegance  she  becomes  the  butt  of  nations 
and  is  readily  charged  with  limiting  her  ambitions  to 
the  cut  of  her  frocks  ;  such  an  assault  is  a  compliment, 
for  it  may  be  safely  accepted  that  it  demonstrates  all 
the  more  clearly  the  French  woman's  success.  She  is 
endowed  with  natural  elegance  and  a  tendency  to  be 
neat  under  the  most  unfavourable  circumstances : 
moreover  she  usually  has  to  make  up  for  her  lack 
of  facial  beauty,  and  dress  is  her  obvious  resource. 
This  accounts  in  great  part  for  her  fame  in  matters  of 
fashion,  and  none  but  a  Puritan  would  look  upon  that 
as  an  undesirable  possession. 

The  national  characteristics  of  the  French  woman  are 
so  distinctive  and  interesting  that  they  must  be  reviewed 
in  detail,  after  which  we  shall  easily  understand  how  she 
has  attained  her  prominent  position  in  French  society 
and  how  unlikely  it  is  that  she  will  forfeit  it.  This 
being  done,  those  very  defects  of  frivolity  and  love  of 
dress  should  be  looked  upon  as  good  qualities,  even  if 
they  were  proved  to  prevail  to  the  degree  that  is 
commonly  accepted,  for  they  show  how  well  the  French 
woman  understands  the  art  of  complete  living,  combin- 
ing as  she  does  efficiency  in  practical  matters  and  an 
intelligent  appreciation  of  beauty  and  grace. 

309 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

We  may,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  distinguish 
among  women  two  types  and  adopt  the  Weininger 
classification  of  wife  and  mother.  We  are  not  concerned 
with  the  French  woman  as  a  personality  but  with  her 
influence  and  attitude  in  the  two  principal  roles  of 
woman  ;  among  French  women  we  meet  successful  law- 
yers,^  doctors,  writers  and  merchants  as  we  do  in  Great 
Britain,  but  they  are  exceptional  in  our  present  world 
system  and  cannot  form  the  basis  of  a  generalisation. 
It  is  the  French  wife  and  the  French  mother  whom  it 
is  important  to  analyse  and  to  understand  if  we  wish  to 
obtain  a  clear  idea  of  woman's  influence  in  France. 

Generally  speaking  the  French  wife  is  conspicuous 
for  her  remarkable  ability  in  household  management ; 
the  German  may  be  more  hardworking  and  the  English 
woman  more  original,  but  neither  combines  the  essential 
qualities  of  thrift,  frugality  and  intelligent  sympathy, 
tempered  by  a  due  regard  for  elegance,  which  charac- 
terise the  French  woman.  It  is  difficult  to  trace  the 
origin  of  this  efficiency,  easy  as  it  may  be  to  define  it  as 
the  unobtrusive  attainment  of  comfort  at  a  minimum 
cost.  From  a  man's  point  of  view  good  food  is  the 
principal  object  and,  in  this  direction,  the  French  woman 
appears  to  shine  in  every  walk  of  life ;  the  fame  of 
French  cooking  has  been  spread  by  the  French  chef,  but 
the  standard  set  by  the  women  of  France  is  unequalled 
in  other  countries.  The  importance  of  this  question 
must  not  be  underrated,  for  well-prepared  food  does  not 
only  pander  to  a  low  form  of  sybaritism,  but  it  has  a 
direct  bearing  on  the  health  of  the  family  and  thereby 
on  its  physical  and  mental  development. 

Among  all  classes  this  question  of  cookery  is  looked 
^  See  p.  322. 
310 


The  French  Woman 

upon  as  important ;  the  well-to-do  boiirgeoise  rarely 
disdains  to  enter  her  kitchen  and  even  to  take  part  in  the 
preparation  of  food  :  she  invariably  keeps  in  very  close 
contact  with  her  servants,  upon  whom  she  does  not 
obtrude  her  authority,  and  criticises  severely  the  results 
of  their  efforts  ;  this,  of  course,  tends  to  a  high  standard, 
of  which  all  classes  reap  the  benefit.  Making  every 
allowance  for  natural  genius,  it  is  noteworthy  that 
household  matters  are  taught,  particularly  in  the  lower 
middle  classes,  and  that  the  daughters  of  the  family  are 
grounded  in  all  branches  of  the  truest  domestic  economy. 

In  France  women  are  usually  confronted  with  small 
means  and  large  demands  for,  as  a  rule,  salaries  and 
profits  are  not  large ;  where  the  reverse  is  the  case,  the 
French  tendency  towards  economy  induces  all  classes 
to  live  well  within  their  income.^  Thus  we  find  economy 
exemplified  by  the  French  housewife  ;  in  spite  of  the 
high  price  of  foodstuffs  and  household  requisites,  she 
maintains  a  standard  of  comfort  that  is  unknown 
among  the  corresponding  classes  in  Great  Britain. 
The  fare  is  more  pleasing  and  far  more  varied  ;  it  is 
far  less  heavy,  which  may  account  for  the  rarity  of 
dyspepsia  and  for  national  cheerfulness  ;  servants  are 
more  cleanly  and  so  efficient  that,  as  a  rule,  establish- 
ments are  about  half  the  British  class  equivalent. 
Indeed  the  servant  problem  is  unknown  in  France, 
partly  because  there  is  no  demand  for  large  staffs,  but 
mainly  because  their  individual  standard  of  efficiency 
is  very  high. 

The  immediate  result  of  household  economy  might 
be  personal  extravagance,  but  here  again  we  find  the 

^  It  is  not  unusual  to  find  a  French  family  saving  lo  to  25  per  cent  of 
its  annual  income. 

3" 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
French  woman  the  prime  mover  in  family  thrift.  She 
fully  shares  her  husband's  ambition  for  "  old  age  in  a 
cottage,"  and  steadily  works  towards  that  end.  She  is 
generally  cautious  and  often  controls  the  investment 
of  savings,  with  which  she  usually  purchases  Govern- 
ment securities.  The  acquisition  of  interests  in  foreign 
ventures  does  not  proceed  from  the  women  of  France ; 
they  almost  invariably  confine  themselves  to  French 
Government  stocks  or  to  municipal  loans  into  which 
there  enters  a  mild  element  of  gambling.^  To  this  sound 
if  unprogressive  policy,  France  owes  to  a  great  extent 
her  extraordinary  accumulation  of  wealth. 

A  perfect  housekeeper  is,  however,  not  the  perfect 
wife ;  the  ideal  wife  may  be  an  execrable  mother : 
indeed  it  is  permissible  to  suggest  that  the  wife  type 
and  the  mother  type  exclude  one  another.  This  often 
happens  in  France,  but,  generally  speaking,  the  French 
woman  gives  her  husband  that  essential  pleasure  with- 
out which  marriage  is  a  failure,  sympathy  with  his 
work  or  his  ambitions.  It  has  often  been  said  that 
French  women  run  their  husbands'  businesses  ;  this  is 
perhaps  exaggerated,  though  often  true  in  the  case  of 
the  shopkeeping  classes,  where  the  wife  is  usually 
cashier,  accountant  and  shop  assistant,  but  there  is  no 
doubt  that  Frenchmen  confide  to  a  notable  extent  in 
their  wives  and  accept  their  advice  in  matters  of  busi- 
ness. The  shrewdness  and  acquisitiveness  of  the 
French  woman  stand  her  in  good  stead  and  give  her 

^  Premium  Bonds.  They  are  as  a  rule  issued  by  Town  Councils  or 
by  the  Credit  Foncier  (Land  Bank),  and  pay  between  2  and  4  per  cent 
interest ;  all  are  redeemable  at  par,  and  some  hundreds  are  drawn  every 
year,  carrying  prizes  varying  between  ^^40  and  ^4000 ;  a  few  prizes 
reach  ;{^20,ooo. 

312 


The  French  Woman 

upon  her  husband  the  powerful  hold  that  goes  with  the 
control  of  the  purse. 

In  other  directions  than  in  business  this  helpful  ten- 
dency is  apparent ;  the  French  woman  wedded  to  a 
professional  man  or  an  artist  is  his  most  enthusiastic 
advertising  agent ;  she  will  spare  no  efforts  that  he  may 
attain  his  success  :  indeed,  there  are  perhaps  grounds 
for  a  traditional  if  somewhat  coarse  French  pleasantry, 
concerning  the  wives  of  officials  who  depend  for  pro- 
motion on  the  good  graces  of  a  chief  To  emphasise 
this  piece  of  slander,  which  has  been  the  subject  of 
many  scurrilous  jests,  is  not  desirable,  but  it  illustrates 
very  clearly  the  lengths  to  which  the  French  conceive 
their  ambitious  wives  might  go. 

It  must  not  be  inferred  from  the  foregoing  that  I 
wish  to  prove  that  the  French  woman  is  the  ideal  type 
of  wife.  Comparison  is  unnecessary,  though  she  prob- 
ably contrasts  favourably  with  the  average  British  wife  ; 
she  has,  however,  certain  characteristics  which  would, 
in  our  opinion,  militate  against  her.  The  French  woman 
is  dour  and  tends  to  become  mercenary,  a  natural 
development  of  her  qualities  of  thrift  and  frugality. 
The  needs  of  the  household  and  the  demands  of  her 
taste  for  adornment  being  satisfied,  the  French  woman 
is  distinctly  avaricious  and  influences  to  a  noxious 
degree  the  expenditure  of  her  household.  She  does 
not  recognise  sufficiently  the  need  for  relaxation ;  she  is 
inclined  to  forgo  pleasures  that  must  be  paid  for  and 
to  interfere  with  the  amusements  of  the  masculine 
portion  of  the  family. 

As  a  natural  result  of  a  stay-at-home  life,  the  French 
woman  often  becomes  petty  and  narrow  ;  small  plea- 
sures, small  cares  and  small  ambitions  infallibly  do  their 

313 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

work.  She  dwarfs  her  husband's  outlook  and  it  is 
partly  to  her  that  we  can  trace  his  lack  of  ambition, 
just  as  we  can  follow  the  weakening  trend  of  her  influ- 
ence on  her  sons. 

The  imperfections  of  the  French  woman  are  perfectly 
normal,  and  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  she  would  not  lose 
much  of  her  value  if  she  were  devoid  of  them  ;  she  has 
"  the  defects  of  her  qualities,"  as  the  French  saying 
goes.  The  sum  total  of  her  faults  and  of  her  virtues 
leaves,  however,  a  substantial  balance  in  her  favour. 
The  foregoing  remarks  apply  mainly  to  the  bourgeoisie. 
They  acquire  more  force  when  applied  to  the  working 
classes ;  the  middle-class  British  housewife  is  not 
separated  from  her  French  sister  by  obvious  shortcom- 
ings, whereas  a  comparison  of  the  working  classes  is  at 
once  striking  and  depressing. 

It  is  notorious  that  the  British  workman's  helpmeet  is 
fast  becoming  more  and  more  inefficient ;  she  does  not 
deserve  the  abuse  showered  upon  her  by  classes  that 
hate  and  despise  her,  but  it  is  obvious  to  any  who  visit 
homes  in  the  poorer  districts  that  household  economy  is 
vanishing.  The  old  Board  schools  were  certainly  a  poor 
training  ground  for  the  daughters  of  the  people,  for  too 
little  attention  was  usually  given  to  instruction  in  really 
necessary  matters.  Such  an  assertion  as  this  will  no 
doubt  be  met  with  the  remark  that  a  daughter  of  the 
people  has  as  much  right  to  learn  the  violin  or  to  model 
in  clay  as  the  daughter  of  a  peer ;  undoubtedly,  but 
under  the  evil  conditions  of  modern  society,  where 
education  stops  at  too  early  an  age,  it  is  more  essen- 
tial that  the  future  wife  of  the  working  man  should 
learn  how  to  cook,  to  sew  and  to  rear  children :  as  con- 
ditions alter,  the  standards  may  well  be  raised. 

3M 


The  French  Woman 

In  France  the  workman's  daughter  is  grounded  in  the 
essentials  in  her  own  family,  a  task  all  the  easier  of 
fulfilment  because  female  labour  is  not  so  much  in 
request  in  France  as  it  is  in  Great  Britain.  Thus  the 
workman's  home  is  clean,  his  fare  good  and  his  children 
well  reared  :  as  a  result  he  does  not  fly  to  the  public- 
house  and  he  is  usually  a  good  husband.  The  unutter- 
ably horrible  conditions  of  London  slums  do  not  prevail 
in  France ;  if  we  make  every  allowance  for  bad  housing, 
an  antiquated  land  system,  eccentric  land  taxation  and 
intemperance,  a  share  of  the  responsibility  still  rests  on 
the  incompetent  and  slatternly  wives.  I  must  repeat 
that  they  are  ground  down  by  evil  social  conditions 
unknown  in  France,  but  my  object  is  not  so  much  to 
shed  light  on  the  causes  of  the  French  working  woman's 
superiority  as  to  show  where  it  is  manifest. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  the  French  woman's 
problems  are  simplified  by  the  low  birthrate  ;  the  calls 
on  the  household  funds  are  obviously  less,  and,  above 
all,  the  French  woman  can  find  time  to  be  a  wife  as  well 
as  a  mother  and  to  create  for  her  husband  a  home 
where  he  is  not  looked  upon  as  an  interloper,  entitled 
solely  to  toleration  as  the  father  of  the  children.  From 
this  point  of  view  also  the  French  woman  is  interesting, 
for  she  is  at  least  as  characteristic  a  mother  as  she  is  a 
wife. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  define  the  perfect  mother ; 
whether  the  "  Spartan  "  type,  cold,  narrow  and  wedded 
to  duty,  or  the  tender,  caressing  matron,  is  the  ideal  type 
can  only  be  determined  by  considering  the  characteristics 
of  the  offspring.  The  Hottentot  Venus  differs  in  line 
from  the  Greek  Aphrodite :  likewise  it  may  be  said  that 
a  people  has  the  mothers  it  needs  and  the  mothers  it 

315 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
deserves.  We  must,  therefore,  take  the  French  mother 
as  she  is ;  we  may  admire  or  condemn  certain  of  her 
traits,  but  only  in  relation  to  British  standards,  keeping 
in  mind  that  she  is  the  type  that  is  suitable  to  the 
French  race. 

The  outstanding  feature  of  the  French  mother  is  her 
extreme,  her  animal  devotion  to  her  children  ;  maternal 
love  is  a  ferocious  thing,  ready  at  a  pinch  to  devour  the 
mother  herself:  in  France  it  is  carried  to  sublime 
lengths  of  devotion,  to  sublime  lengths  of  folly.  Owing 
perhaps  to  the  fact  that  families  are  so  small  that  they 
so  often  number  but  one  child,  the  mother's  love  con- 
centrates itself  round  but  few  objects ;  it  gains  in  in- 
tensity that  which  it  loses  in  extent. 

The  child  is  everything  ;  its  well-being,  its  training, 
its  education  are  the  mother's  perpetual  care ;  French 
households  do  not  know  the  nursery  where  the  child  is 
given  over  to  hirelings ;  it  hardly  knows  the  Kinder- 
garten where  it  is  estranged  from  its  mother,  the  board- 
ing school  at  an  early  age  where  the  gentle  boy  is 
coarsened  and  brutalised.  Not  only  does  the  French 
mother  usually  nurse  her  own  baby,  but  in  later  years 
she  will  attend  to  its  feeding  and  clothing  herself;  she 
will  herself  give  it  its  first  lessons,  make  it  her  playmate 
as  well  as  her  toy.  In  these  respects  she  does  not  differ 
from  the  best  British  mothers,  but  the  average  type 
seems  superior  to  that  known  in  these  isles. 

Where  the  most  striking  contrast  appears,  however, 
is  in  the  matter  of  education.  Even  among  the  working 
classes,  home  education  is  a  feature,  particularly  as  re- 
gards the  girls ;  France  does  not,  in  this  direction,  suffer 
from  the  handicap  that  afflicts  Great  Britain,  where  evil 
social  conditions  have  driven  women  into  the  labour 

316 


The  French  Woman 

market,  into  the  hands  of  the  sweater.  Among  the 
middle  classes,  every  mother  seems  to  have  but  one 
idea  :  to  raise  the  child  by  educating  it  under  pressure. 
The  working  woman  wants  her  son  to  be  a  clerk  or  an 
official ;  the  lower  middle-class  woman  aims  at  the 
professions ;  the  professions  dream  of  politics  and  the 
arts. 

To  do  all  this,  the  classes  do  not  spare  themselves ; 
they  are  not  content  with  sending  the  sons  to  school 
and  the  daughters  to  convents ;  they  (and  by  "  they " 
I  mean  the  women)  send  their  children  to  day  schools 
and  either  take  part  themselves  in  their  work  or  give 
them  every  possible  opportunity,  by  means  of  special 
tuition  or  foreign  servants,  of  achieving  scholastic  suc- 
cess in  general  knowledge  of  European  languages. 

Willingly  does  the  French  woman,  that  reputedly 
frivolous  being,  renounce  pleasure  in  this  cause ;  she 
practises  rigid  economy  so  as  to  give  her  sons  a  start  in 
life,  her  daughters  a  chance  of  marrying  easily.  She 
gives  her  time  and  her  energy  to  this  most  complete 
duty  of  women  and  reaps  a  harvest  of  progressing 
generations  and  filial  love.  It  would  be  easy  to  dilate 
on  the  subject ;  it  might  be  admissible  to  do  so,  even  it 
no  new  facts  were  quoted,  so  as  to  drive  home  the  truth 
that,  for  devotion  and  self-abnegation,  she  cannot  be 
equalled  or  even  rivalled.  Devoted  mothers  are  not 
confined  to  France ;  they  are  to  be  found  among  all 
races  and  it  would  be  a  sad  day  for  the  race  that  lost 
them,  but  the  investigator  is  struck  by  the  fact  that 
devotion  is  the  rule  and  not  the  exception  in  all  classes 
of  French  society. 

With  the  French  mother's  virtues,  as  with  those  of 
the  French  v,  ifj;,  go  the  defects  inherent  to  all  extremes. 

0^7 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Her  devotion  often  goes  too  far :  it  would  tend  to  es- 
trange her  from  her  husband  if  the  latter  did  not,  as  a 
rule,  participate  proudly  in  this  votive  offering  at  the 
shrine  of  his  child.  It  is  on  the  latter,  however,  that 
this  excess  of  devotion  reacts  unfavourably ;  the  child 
is  often  "  spoiled  "  by  being  made  the  cynosure  of  all 
eyes,  by  feeling  that  it  is  the  main  asset  of  family  happi- 
ness ;  thus  it  grows  up  exacting,  fretful  and  impatient 
of  restraint,  which  may  account  for  the  peculiarities  of 
modern  France. 

The  spoiled  child  is,  however,  as  a  rule,  cured  by  the 
rough  discipline  of  school,  the  sons  by  the  still  rougher 
teaching  of  the  regiment  and  the  daughters  by  the 
semi-zenana  n'gime  to  which  they  are  subjected  at  an 
early  age.  The  more  serious  aspect  of  the  question  is 
that  children  are  too  carefully  shielded,  that  too  much 
love  and  care  are  lavished  upon  them,  so  that  they  do 
not  grow  up  sturdy  and  self-reliant.  The  French  mother 
is  only  now  giving  way,  and  that  reluctantly,  to  more 
enlightened  ideas ;  she  still  fears  for  her  child  the  sun, 
the  rain,  the  dangers  of  the  street.  She  still  looks 
askance  at  athletics,  enthusiastic  as  she  may  outwardly 
seem  when  British  methods  are  discussed  ;  the  fear  of 
draughts  in  the  house,  of  boating  and  swimming,  of 
cycling  even,  are  always  with  her :  the  elements  and  the 
Fates  seem  to  her  to  be  in  league  to  rob  her  of  her 
dearest  possession,  so  she  guards  it  jealously,  much  to 
the  detriment  of  its  courage  and  its  energy. 

One  still  sees  now  and  then  a  boy  of  fourteen 
subjected  to  the  ignominy  of  being  conducted  daily  to 
and  from  school  by  a  female  servant ;  the  more  painful 
side  of  the  practice  is  that  the  boy  submits.  Is  such 
a    regime   conducive    to    developing    his    personality? 

318 


The  French  Woman 

Hardly ;  yet  the  system  prevails  and  clearly  demon- 
strates why  French  women  are  not  makers  of  men. 
The  fetters  of  the  boy  are  not  struck  off  when  he 
reaches  man's  estate  ;  the  mother's  love  is  to  him  a 
handicap,  for  it  influences  his  conduct  and  warps  his 
ambition.  The  French  mother  has  a  horror  of  the 
uncertain  and  loves  to  picture  for  her  son  the  peaceful 
serenity  of  an  official  appointment  leading  up  to  a 
pension ;  she  dislikes  the  risks  of  commerce  and  of 
industry  and  the  great  unknown  of  the  professions :  as 
for  adventure,  emigration,  the  colonies,  they  are  for  her 
haunting,  ever-present  phantoms. 

The  Ji'rench  mother  is  ambitious,  but  her  ambition 
does  not  soar ;  she  asks  for  a  life  of  well-being,  not 
of  great  deeds  :  thus  she  clips  the  wings  of  her  fledgling, 
stunts  the  development  of  its  character,  though  she 
fosters  the  development  of  its  intellect.  Her  love  is 
deep  but  narrow  and  she  never  realises  the  folly 
of  hanging  round  the  child's  neck  the  millstone  of  an 
exacting  affection.  She  meddles  in  the  affairs  of  her 
sons,  attempts,  careless  of  their  tendencies,  to  direct  them 
into  the  channel  she  chooses  and  works  to  an  extent 
that  is  hardly  fair  upon  the  love  that  they  bear  her. 

French  women  are  an  intelligent  class,  but  they  are 
not  of  those  "  women  of  ideas  "  the  sons  of  whom  are 
blessed  in  their  heredity.  They  love,  but  narrowly  ; 
they  dream,  but  do  not  transcend.  They  reap  a  rich 
harvest  of  filial  love  and,  to  the  end  of  their  lives,  hold 
in  their  children's  hearts  a  place  of  which  the  British 
can  have  no  conception  ;  this  may  seem  a  sweeping 
assertion,  but  there  are  no  "  revolting "  daughters  in 
France ;  the  sons  do  not  emigrate  and  defer,  not  only 
out  of  a   sense   of  duty,  but  by  inclination,  to   their 

3^9 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

mother's  desires,  whether  the  latter  influence  their 
marriage  or  the  choice  *of  a  career. 

It  is  hard  to  arrive  at  a  definite  conclusion  and  to 
decide  whether  the  mothers  of  France  are  or  are  not  the 
perfect  type ;  the  theory  that  they  are  the  most  suited 
to  their  own  people  is  probably  the  correct  view,  this 
being  supported  by  the  conclusion  arrived  at  as  regards 
the  French  wife.  If  we  consider  the  sum  total  of  their 
virtues  and  the!''  faults,  a  substantial  balance  stands  to 
their  credit — a  fact  to  which  the  esteem  and  reverence 
in  which  they  are  held  by  the  people  of  France  amply 
bear  witness.  An  analysis  of  woman's  position  as  wife 
and  mother  does  not,  however,  exhaust  the  possi- 
bilities of  appreciation  ;  narrow  as  the  field  of  woman 
may  be,  there  are  still  for  her  other  occupations  than 
the  discharge  of  maternal  duties.  Let  it  be  said  at  once 
that  this  state  of  things  does  not  prevail  in  France  to  a 
degree  comparable  with  the  situation  in  Great  Britain. 
The  limited  population  of  France  and  the  fact  that  there 
is  no  excess  of  female  births  to  be  coped  with  have  placed 
the  country  beyond  the  difficulties  that  confront  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race ;  the  problem  of  the  single  woman 
has  thus  been  deeply  modified. 

Whether  we  consider  the  working  or  the  middle  class 
in  France,  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the  comparative 
restriction  of  female  employment ;  women  have,  of  course, 
the  quasi-monopoly  of  domestic  service,  millinery  and 
dressmaking,  but  they  do  not  outnumber  men  in  shops 
and  stores,  nor  have  they  captured  employment  in  the 
refreshment  trades  as  has  been  the  case  in  Great  Britain. 
The  female  attendant  is  the  exception,  not  the  rule, 
singular  as  this  may  seem  to  a  nation  accustomed  to 
be  ministered  to  exclusively  by  women  or  foreigners. 

320 


The  French  Woman 

In  general  business  the  same  phenomenon  may  be  ob- 
served, for  clerks,  cashiers,  typists,  messengers,  etc.  are 
almost  invariably  men.  Even  the  factories  do  not  to 
a  noticeable  extent  employ  women,  the  only  direction  in 
which  they  find  more  scope  than  in  Great  Britain  being 
in  agriculture. 

Opportunities  for  women  are  thus  comparatively  few, 
and  that  for  obvious  reasons.  In  a  general  way  it  may 
be  said  that  supply  inevitably  creates  demand,  and 
that,  if  French  women  came  readily  into  the  labour 
market,  they  would  obtain  a  larger  share  of  employ- 
ment. The  women  of  France  do  not,  to  an  appreciable 
extent,  attempt  to  oust  man  from  his  position,  in  great 
part  because  they  are  not  usually  compelled  to  earn 
their  own  living  by  other  means  than  household  duties. 
As  regards  the  working  classes,  a  fair  measure  of 
industrial  prosperity  enables  them  to  keep  up  comfort- 
able homes  without  compelling  wives  to  contribute  to 
the  family  budget ;  the  children  not  being  over-numer- 
ous, it  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  be  inordinately 
large ;  housing  conditions  being  fairly  good,  drunken- 
ness is  not  prevalent,  so  that  ends  can  be  made  to 
meet.  The  daughters  do,  as  a  matter  of  course,  engage 
in  some  employment,  but  they  rarely  look  upon  it  as 
anything  but  an  interlude  to  which  marriage  will  soon 
put  an  end.  Moreover,  the  thrift  of  the  nation  enables 
them  to  marry  easily,  when  they  automatically  make 
way  for  others,  instead  of  swelling  indefinitely  the 
ranks  of  the  wage  earners. 

The  difference  between  France  and  Great  Britain  is 

in  this  respect  far  more  apparent  among  the   middle 

and  lower  middle  classes.    They  do  not  look  upon  it  as 

a  matter  of  course  that  their  daughters  should  engage 

Y  321 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

in  remunerative  employment,  mainly  because  it  is 
usually  unnecessary ;  there  is,  moreover,  very  little 
desire  among  French  girls  to  "  live  their  own  lives,"  or 
to  attain  comparative  independence,  for  they  still  look 
upon  marriage  as  their  natural  career.  It  is  unusual  for 
a  French  girl  whose  parents  are  in  humble,  but  com- 
fortable, circumstances  to  enter  the  labour  market  and 
undersell  men  for  the  sake  of  pin-money,  and  this  must 
be  taken  into  account  when  we  examine  the  causes  of 
French  prosperity. 

It  cannot  too  well  be  understood  that  France  has 
not  to  face  the  common  British  problem  of  large 
families  consisting  mainly  of  girls  ;  the  reasons  for  this 
are  not  easily  explained,  though  Dr.  A.  Weill  tentatively 
submits  a  theory  of  sex  based  on  the  superior  "  life- 
force  "  of  French  women.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  small 
French  families  do  not  contain  an  undue  proportion  of 
daughters,  so  that  the  girls  are  not  driven  out  by  the 
needs  of  the  family  and  perpetual  association  with  their 
own  sex.  For  all  these  reasons  the  French  woman  need 
hardly  be  considered  as  a  wage  earner,  especially  as,  in 
this  direction,  she  does  not  display  the  capacities  which 
she  exercises  when  in  charge  of  her  own  affairs.  She 
is  competent  and  careful,  without  great  originality,  but 
as  much  might  be  said  of  women  of  any  other  nation, 
so  that  it  becomes  unnecessary  to  enlarge  on  the  point. 
It  should  be  noted,  in  passing,  that  the  more  intellectual 
section  of  French  women  has  taken  an  energetic  line 
with  a  view  to  extending  opportunities  for  their  fellows; 
they  have,  as  in  England,  extensively  entered  the  ranks 
of  medicine,  and  the  fact  that  Mademoiselle  Chauvin^ 

^  Since  Mademoiselle  Chauvin  succeeded  in  her  efforts,  several  ladies 
have  been  called  to  the  Paris  Bar. 

322 


The  French  Woman 

has,  after  great  commotion,  succeeded  in  becoming  a 
barrister,  shows  that  the  coveted  profession  of  the  law 
has  in  France  been  opened  to  women  whilst  England 
still  lagged  behind. 

Generally  speaking,  the  French  woman  does  not  aspire 
to  become  the  predominant  partner,  nor  does  she  claim 
equality,  because  she  is  already  in  possession  of 
influence.  She  still  cherishes  a  desire  for  the  admiration 
and  respect  of  men,  and  willingly  submits  to  irksome 
conditions,  knowing  that  the  barriers  will  be  removed 
on  their  marriage.  She  has  not  entirely  emerged 
from  the  older  tradition  of  subservience,  and  still  looks 
upon  man  as  the  superior  being,  whose  regard  and 
protection  it  is  desirable  to  secure.  She  would  not 
be  willing  to  accept  confinement  in  a  harem,  but  she 
is  not  anxious  to  compete  with  men  on  their  own 
ground.  It  is  in  great  part  for  these  reasons  that 
Sufifragism  is  so  undeveloped  in  France.  During  the 
last  two  or  three  years  agitation  has  begun,  and  has 
resulted  in  a  few  isolated  meetings  and  processions,  but, 
for  all  practical  purposes,  the  movement  is  non-existent ; 
the  public  takes  no  interest  in  it,  nor  are  women's 
organisations  numerous  or  powerful  enough  to  adopt 
the  conspicuous  methods  which  have,  in  Great  Britain, 
made  women's  suffrage  a  question  of  the  day.  It  is 
hardly  permissible  to  say  that  the  demand  will  not 
grow  insistent ;  it  is  in  the  nature  of  things  that  it 
should,  and  it  must  be  obvious  to  the  fair-minded 
observer  that  women  of  all  nations  will  ultimately 
attain  political  equality  with  men,  a  place  to  which  they 
are  entitled  ;  the  time  has  not  yet  come  in  France, 
partly  because  women  live  under  too  favourable  con- 
ditions, but  mainly  because  they  are  too  individualistic 

323 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

and  do  not  take  themselves  seriously  as  a  sex  ;  until 
they  do  so  and  accept  the  responsibilities  that  this 
assumption  would  entail  upon  them,  they  can  only  make 
headway  slowly  and  struggle  obscurely  among  other 
inchoate  political  parties. 

French  women  have,  however,  a  far  more  subtle  and 
powerful  hold  upon  the  male  sex  than  is  the  case  in 
this  country.  They  are  practically  indispensable  to 
men,  who  do  not  habitually  seek  one  another's  society, 
and  look  upon  women  as  essential  in  their  lives.  This 
is  interesting,  in  view  of  the  attitude  of  the  male  sex  in 
Great  Britain,  well  content  as  it  appears  to  be  to  forgo 
the  society  of  women  and  to  take  its  pleasures  apart 
from  them.  It  is  in  great  part  for  this  reason  that 
clubs,  which  flourish  everywhere  in  Great  Britain  and  in 
every  walk  of  life,  have  not  succeeded  in  France,  where 
they  are  few,  have  little  influence,  and  are  held  by  their 
members  in  small  esteem  ;  they  are,  as  a  rule,  nothing 
but  gambling  houses,  instead  of  being  luxurious  homes 
where  men  can  either  avoid  all  society  or,  at  any  rate, 
that  of  the  other  sex. 

If  clubs  have  not  succeeded  in  France,  it  is  mainly 
because  their  membership  had  to  be  confined  to  the 
male  sex  and  because,  therefore,  men  would  not  join 
them  ;  a  striking  instance,  of  late  years,  has  been  the 
Racing  Club  of  France,  the  Paris  "  Ranelagh,"  which  is 
very  successful  and  has  over  1500  members;  of  these 
several  hundreds  are  women.  But  for  the  latter  the 
Club  would  never  have  attained  its  present  height  of 
popularity  and  fashion. 

In  general,  Frenchmen  concern  themselves  far  more 
with  the  tastes  and  opinions  of  their  womenkind  than  is 
the  case  in  this  country  ;  they  have  an  everlasting  faculty 

324 


The  French  Woman 

of  wonder,  as  regards  the  ewig  weibliche,  as  is  evinced 
by  their  Hterature  and  their  drama,  based  upon  the 
study  of  woman  in  excelsis  of  her  moods  and  her 
passions.  Many  raise  this  interest  to  the  level  of  an 
obsession,  which  is  confessedly  detrimental  to  the  race ; 
the  "  lady  killer,"  a  type  not  unknown  in  Great  Britain, 
is  far  more  frequently  met  with  in  France.  In  that 
country,  the  sedate  middle-aged  bourgeois  looks  back 
complacently  upon  a  past  of  which  he  is  proud  in  direct 
ratio  to  its  luridity,  a  feeling  mainly  traceable  to  the 
place  that  women  hold  in  Frenchmen's  minds. 

The  French  attitude  can  best  be  summed  up  by  a 
chance  remark  made  in  a  private  conversation  by  M.  de 
Wieczeliski,  a  Slav  by  birth,  a  Frenchman  by  adoption, 
who,  when  charged  with  talking  too  much  about  women, 
summed  up  the  matter  in  an  aphorism  satisfactory  to 
most  Frenchmen  :  //  n'y  a  rien  de  plus  important  que  les 
dames  ! 


325 


CHAPTER   XVI 
MARRIAGE 

THE  conditions  of  wedded  life  are  a  thorny  subject 
to  deal  with,  owing  to  the  deep-rooted  prejudices 
that  confront  those  who  wish  to  speak  plainly  to  an 
idealistic  or  rather  sentimental  people  such  as  the 
British.  They  conceive  of  marriage  on  different  lines 
from  other  peoples  and  are  inclined  to  resent  hotly  any 
disagreement  with  their  views.  A  difference  of  concep- 
tion, a  difference  of  point  of  view,  of  moral  attitude, 
appear  to  them  in  the  light  of  an  insult  to  be  treated 
with  contempt  or  indignantly  flouted.  Yet  I  cannot 
help  thinking  that  it  is  essential  to  deal  with  the  subject, 
so  as  to  endeavour  to  clear  up  some  old-established  mis- 
understandings concerning  the  conditions  of  marriage  in 
France  ;  large  as  may  be  the  yearly  quota  of  balderdash 
that  is  spoken  and  written  of  the  French  in  other  direc- 
tions, no  question  is  dealt  with  more  lightly  and  less 
honestly. 

This  is  a  regrettable  state  of  things  and  it  is  of  course 
traceable  to  a  difference  of  point  of  view.  Most  human 
differences  are  attributable  to  this  cause  and  this  is  no 
exceptional  case ;  an  absolutely  fair-minded  man  may 
find  it  difficult  to  distinguish  good  from  evil,  harassed 
as  he  is  by  doubts  and  reservations,  conscious  of  the 
fact  that  nationalities  as  well   as  circumstances  alter 

326 


Marriage 


cases.  As  regards  marriage  in  particular,  the  difference 
between  the  French  and  the  British  lies  mainly  in  a 
dissimilar  conception  of  the  nature  of  marriage  itself. 
To  the  British,  it  is  still,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  a  sac- 
rament fraught  with  the  gravest  religious  and  moral 
consequences  ;  it  entails  definite  duties  upon  contracting 
parties  and  is  based  on  renunciation  of  liberty.  Those 
who  do  not  consider  marriage  in  the  abstract  and 
remain  uninfluenced  by  its  spiritual  aspects  are  inclined 
to  regard  it  as  a  sublime  sacrifice  of  adoration  and,  on 
the  day  of  their  wedding,  erect  a  monument  to  the  ulti- 
mate height  of  sentiment. 

This  is  a  lofty  view,  proud  and  intolerant  in  its 
beauty,  as  is  ever  beauty  absolute.  Thus  it  becomes 
difficult  for  the  average  man,  particularly  when  un- 
spoiled by  the  shattering  of  his  illusions,  to  appreciate 
the  more  prevalent  French  view  that  marriage  is  a 
contract,  independent  of  sentimental  affinities,  of 
spiritual  communion.  This  must  not  be  accepted  with- 
out qualification,  for  we  shall  see  that  the  uplifting 
of  love  and  the  graces  of  sentiment  are  far  from  un- 
known to  the  Frenchman.  Yet,  on  the  whole,  his 
attitude  towards  marriage  is  not  that  of  the  British 
and  the  idea  of  contract  contributes  powerfully  to  the 
difference. 

The  idea  has  been  deeply  implanted  in  the  French 
race,  and  it  is  no  subject  for  astonishment  if  we  take 
into  account  the  characteristics  of  the  nation.  The 
French  are  a  methodical  and  careful  people,  lovers  of 
preciseness  in  speech  and  deed,  disinclined  to  take 
unnecessary  risks ;  the  happy-go-lucky  practice  that 
governs  the  unions  of  Anglo-Saxon  peoples  is  not  to 
their  taste,  for  it  carries  in  its  train  the  haunting  fear 

327 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

of  poverty,  unsuitability  and  ultimate  disunion.  They 
administer  their  country  with  minute  regard  for  detail, 
leaving  nothing  to  chance ;  their  literature  rises  to  its 
greatest  height  when  it  tells  a  tale  simply  and  clearly ; 
even  their  pageants  are  wonders  of  forethought  and 
organisation.  It  would,  indeed,  be  remarkable  if  they 
had  not  attempted  to  rule  and  direct  into  a  given 
channel  the  all-important  current  of  natural  selection. 
If  the  French  have  put  marriage  on  a  scientific,  not 
to  say  commercial,  basis,  it  is  because  they  invariably 
look  ahead  and  like  to  see  mapped  out  before  them, 
not  only  their  own  career,  but  that  of  their  children. 
Their  innate  carefulness  and  their  somewhat  mercenary 
tendencies  incline  them  to  make  marriage  part  of  their 
career  as  well  as  of  their  higher  life.  Whenever  such 
a  combination  is  attempted,  the  grosser  is  bound  to 
prevail  over  the  finer ;  thus  the  idea  of  marriage  as  a 
solemn  and  beautiful  thing  has  receded,  whilst  the 
material  aspects  have  tended  to  bulk  even  larger. 
Above  all,  the  love  of  family  and  respect  for  its  ties 
have  powerfully  influenced  the  question  ;  the  French 
are  not  ready  to  accept  the  theory  that  human  beings 
should  mate  in  haphazard  fashion  and  bring  into  the 
world  an  unlimited  number  of  children  for  whom  they 
cannot  adequately  provide.  For  them  the  family  is 
the  all-important  question,  and  they  are  anxious  to 
establish  it  on  sound  lines,  with  a  view  to  retaining 
for  it  the  social  status  of  the  parents  or  attaining  if 
possible  a  higher  one.  This  attitude  towards  the 
family  is  reflected  by  the  low  birthrate,  but  it  also 
influences  the  prior  question  of  marriage;  the  French 
deem  it  essential  that  potential  parents  should  bequeath 
to    their    children    something    more    than    health    and 

328 


Marriage 


moral  courage;  indeed,  they  do  not  appear  to  attach 
much  importance  to  the  latter  quality,  but  they  believe 
in  an  irreducible  minimum  of  fortune  below  which 
happiness  cannot  be  attained.  They  are  not  content 
with  the  assurance  that  the  parents'  intellectual  vigour 
will  enable  them  to  face  successfully  the  struggle  for 
life  and  give  their  children  a  fair  start :  they  insist  that 
the  possession  of  capital  enabling  them  to  look  forward 
for  themselves  to  an  old  age  free  from  anxiety,  and  for 
their  children  to  the  certainty  of  their  ultimately  in- 
heriting a  small  independence,  is  an  essential  condition 
which  must  be  fulfilled  if  the  union  is  to  be  a  success. 
There  may  be  much  to  say  both  for  and  against  this 
theory ;  repellent  as  it  may  be  to  some,  it  is  worthy 
of  consideration,  as  it  is  held  by  a  great  people. 
A  few  remarks  on  the  incidents  leading  up  to 
marriage  and  the  events  that  may  follow  upon  it 
should  clear  up  some  misunderstandings  on  the  sub- 
ject, which  are  unfortunately  too  prevalent  in  this 
country. 

Since  marriage  is  regarded  as  a  contract,  it  becomes 
important  to  ensure  that  it  shall  be  entered  upon  with 
due  care  and  foresight ;  amative  aberration  must  be 
guarded  against,  as  it  might  easily  frustrate  the  efforts 
of  the  parents.  Thus  the  French  have  been  led  to 
seclude  their  daughters  and  to  watch  over  them 
jealously,  so  as  to  avoid  their  being  attracted  to  un- 
desirables, i.e.  to  those  whose  means  are  looked  upon 
as  being  insufficient.  In  this  respect  popular  belief  has 
gone  astray  in  this  country,  where  it  is  often  held  that 
French  girls  are  practically  confined  in  a  harem,  that 
they  are  not  allowed  to  look  at,  far  less  to  speak  to 
a  man.     Like  many  ridiculous  misconceptions,  it  has  a 

329 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

substratum  of  truth,  but  we  must  not  allow  ourselves  to 
be  carried  away  by  it.  It  is  true  that  a  peculiar  code 
does  govern  the  relations  of  the  sexes  in  France  and 
that  it  tends  to  keep  them  apart ;  it  is  well  known  that 
they  do  not  mix  freely  in  society  and  games  as  they  do 
in  this  country.  For  instance,  French  entertainments 
and  particularly  dances  differ  widely  from  their  British 
counterparts  ;  French  girls  are  more  severely  chap- 
eroned and  are  not  usually  allowed  to  sit  out  with  their 
partners,  but  are  expected  to  keep  within  the  range  of 
the  maternal  eye.  If  they  indulge  in  athletics,  though 
of  late  years  much  progress  has  been  made,  they  are 
also  supervised  continually  and  can  never  hope  for  the 
freedom  of  intercourse  that  characterises  these  relations 
in  Great  Britain  ;  they  rarely  go  out  unattended  or 
hustle  it  in  shops  and  traffic  as  do  their  British  sisters. 

This  said,  however,  we  must  qualify  these  apparently 
rigid  restrictions  ;  chaperonage  is  continuous  but  it  is 
fairly  benign  and  only  makes  itself  felt  when  there  is  a 
tendency  to  abuse  what  liberty  is  granted  ;  I  will  not 
pretend  to  decide  which  is  the  better,  the  British  system 
of  trust,  which  tends  to  defeminise  women,  or  the 
French  methods,  the  result  of  which  is  to  oversex  them. 
The  constant  tendency  to  harp  upon  sex  differences,  so 
prevalent  in  France,  imbues  sex  with  a  peculiar  interest 
so  noticeably  absent  in  Great  Britain,  where  restrictions 
do  not  make  themselves  felt ;  this  is  an  unfortunate 
result,  but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  French 
mother  has  to  deal  with  Frenchmen,  who  are  rather 
different  from  Englishmen,  and  so  other  methods  must 
be  used. 

A  great  deal  might  be  said  about  French  and  English 
systems,  as  applied  to  the  training  of  girls,  but  it  is 

330 


Marriage 


hardly  within  the  scope  of  this  chapter ;  the  essential 
point  is  that  we  should  understand  that  French  girls  are 
not  so  entirely  segregated  as  is  often  imagined  and  that 
they  are  rapidly  improving  their  position ;  they  are 
allowed  freer  intercourse  with  men  than  was  the  case  a 
few  years  ago,  can  make  their  opinions  known,  and  thus 
acquire  an  even  better-established  right  to  choose  their 
husbands.  One  of  the  difficulties  of  the  problem  lies 
with  the  French  youth,  governed  as  he  is  by  canons 
differing  from  those  of  the  Englishman  ;  we  cannot  hope 
to  apply  to  him  the  rules  that  control  us,  because  he  has 
evolved  differently. 

The  young  Frenchman  rarely  looks  upon  marriage 
in  the  same  light  as  the  Englishman,  except  that  both 
are  given  to  considering  it  a  peril  to  be  shunned  as  long 
as  possible  ;  the  French  usually  look  upon  it  as  a  refuge 
for  the  destitute  when  the  sweets  of  life  have  been 
tasted  to  the  full,  whereas  the  British  are  more  neutral, 
careless  as  they  are  of  woman  in  the  abstract,  so  that 
their  attitude  is  rather  one  of  abstention  in  favour  of 
masculine  society.  Generally  speaking  the  Frenchman 
marries  later  than  is  the  case  in  this  country  and 
"  lives  "  (as  the  word  goes)  to  a  far  fuller  extent ;  he 
need  not  be  a  rake,  but  he  is  given  to  disdaining  steadi- 
ness and  rarely  attains  the  age  of  marriage  with  his 
illusions  entire  ;  he  may  thus  save  himself  from  the 
painful,  if  inevitable,  process  of  seeing  them  shattered, 
but  that  is  a  side  issue. 

Given,  therefore,  that  it  is  if  anything  in  a  man's 
favour  to  have  sown  a  plentiful  crop  of  wild  oats, 
given  indeed  that  the  "  steady "  young  man  is  not 
looked  upon  with  favour  by  mothers  or  daughters,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  the  sexes  should  be  kept  apart  or  at 

331 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

any  rate  carefully  watched.  It  is  undeniable  that  this 
process  of  watching  increases  sex  interest,  but  it  is  also 
true  that  keen  sex  interest  makes  watching  necessary ; 
both  processes  react  upon  one  another  :  thus,  as  we 
have  to  take  things  as  we  find  them,  the  reasons  for  the 
course  that  is  followed  must  be  apparent. 

We  must  also  take  into  account  the  fact  that  paternal 
authority  is,  in  France,  a  far  more  important  factor 
than  it  is  in  Great  Britain  ;  a  father  may  hope  for 
affection  and  respect  in  any  country,  but  his  position  is 
enormously  strengthened  when  the  law  endows  him 
with  special  rights.  In  this  particular  case,  his  power 
to  prevent  the  marriage  of  his  sons  before  the  age  of 
twenty-five  and  that  of  his  daughters  before  twenty-one 
is  of  notable  interest  ;  these  powers  are  thoroughly 
effective,  as  no  inaire  acting  as  registrar  may  omit  to 
ascertain  whether  parental  consent  to  the  union  has 
been  given.  If  we  add  to  this  the  fact  that  a  dowry  is 
the  rule  and  that  it  can  be  withheld  where  the  parents 
object  to  a  marriage,  it  will  be  readily  understood  how 
strong  is  the  hold  that  parents  have  on  their  children  ; 
thus  they  are  enabled  to  hold  them  in  check,  to  curb 
their  inclinations,  and  to  direct  them  without  much 
difficulty  into  the  desired  channel. 

Parents  generally  exercise  their  power  with  a  view 
to  making  as  suitable  a  match  as  possible  for  their 
children  and  in  this,  the  "  marriage  of  convenience,"  we 
at  once  come  across  a  profound  divergence  from  British 
ideas.  Whereas  the  great  majority  of  betrothals  in 
these  islands  are  entered  upon  freely  by  young  men  and 
maidens,  who  have  afterwards  to  gain  the  consent  of 
their  parents,  in  France  the  process  is  inverted  :  the 
marriage  is  likely  to  be  arranged  by  the  parents  and 

332 


Marriage 


acceded  to  by  the  children.  These  facts  are  not  novel 
and  are  only  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  leading  up 
to  an  important  qualification ;  there  exists  an  impres- 
sion in  this  country  that  sons  and  daughters  are  hardly 
consulted  at  all  and  that  their  consent  is  not  asked  ;  in 
fact  public  opinion  seems  seriously  to  accept  the  view 
that  French  girls  have  usually  as  much  say  in  the 
selection  of  their  husbands  as  the  Turkish  child- 
bride.  Facts,  however,  point  to  the  contrary;  although 
girls  are  sometimes  forced  into  distasteful  marriages 
(and  this  is  not  unknown  in  Great  Britain),  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases  they  are  enabled  to  gain  more  than  a 
mere  impression  of  their  suitor  and,  though  they  may 
not  themselves  select  him,  they  will  probably  single  him 
out  from  among  several  aspirants. 

Marriage  in  France  is  not  free  selection,  but  it  is  not 
slavery ;  French  girls  are  taught  to  look  upon  marriage 
in  the  light  of  a  contract,  just  as  are  their  future  hus- 
bands :  thus  they  make  no  demands  on  sentiment  and 
do  not,  as  a  rule,  expect  to  wed  a  lover  as  well  as 
a  husband.  Their  choice  may  be  limited,  but  within 
these  limits  it  is  free ;  whether  the  system  be  salutary 
or  noxious  can  only  appear  from  its  results. 

The  very  fact  that  this  system  has  produced  an 
intelligent  and  interesting  race,  so  many  united  families 
and  such  good  citizens  should  certainly  militate  in  its 
favour.  Without  supporting  either  the  marriage  of  con- 
venience or  freedom  of  choice,  one  cannot  help  thinking, 
if  one  considers  results,  that  the  former  does  not  deserve 
the  abuse  that  is  so  frequently  showered  upon  it.  One 
of  its  main  advantages  is  the  restraint  that  it  imposes 
on  rash  and  improvident  unions,  rash  not  only  as 
regards  material  matters,  but  with  regard   to  natural 

333 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
suitability  or  its  opposite.  Instinct  may  often  lead  us  to 
our  goal,  but  often  too  it  leads  us  astray ;  the  records 
of  the  divorce  courts  show  that  they  have  too  often  had 
to  deal  with  the  outcome  of  passionate  but  ephemeral 
attachments.  Thus,  though  this  is  not  an  indictment 
of  "  love  matches,"  it  is  allowable  to  say  that  the  French 
system  may,  in  the  long  run,  save  the  young  and 
impetuous  from  spoiling  their  lives. 

If  we  take  as  a  type  the  better  class  of  marriage 
of  convenience,  i.e.  that  which  is  not  based  solely  on 
monetary  considerations,  one  cannot  help  thinking  that 
a  "reasonable  choice"  is  preferable  to  the  dive  into  the 
unlucky  bag  in  which  our  youth  so  often  indulges. 
Given  a  daughter,  the  French  family  will  seek  out  for 
her  a  man  of  suitable  age,  of  sufficient  means  (not  as 
a  rule  of  greater  wealth,  as  will  be  shown  further  on)  and 
of  equal  social  standing ;  in  fact,  if  I  dare  put  it  so 
crudely,  they  seek  for  their  children  the  most  suitable 
mate,  just  as  they  might  do  for  a  prize  mare  or  stallion ; 
such  a  suggestion  may  be  revolting  in  its  bluntness,  but 
can  any  scientific  reason  be  discerned  why  we  should 
regulate  so  minutely  the  heredity  of  our  horses  and  be 
so  neglectful  of  our  own  ? 

The  practical  aspects  of  the  marriage  of  convenience 
are  as  important  as  the  theoretical.  There  is  no 
glamour  of  illusion  at  the  inception  of  marriage ;  the 
bride  or  bridegroom  elect  is  looked  upon  as  satisfactory, 
but  not  as  the  one  and  only  predestined  twin  soul. 
Thus,  the  debacle  that  so  often  overwhelms  those  who 
have  wedded  in  haste  is  hardly  to  be  feared  ;  a  cunning 
French  proverb  tells  us  that  "  The  higher  the  level  you 
fall  from,  the  more  it  hurts "  ;  can  anything  be  more 
appropriate  to  an  institution  such  as  marriage  which 

334 


Marriage 

must  inevitably  rub  the  gilt  off  the  idyllic  gingerbread? 
The  artistic  temperament,  which  even  the  most  matter- 
of-fact  persons  develop  in  the  halcyon  days,  shrinks 
from  the  greyness  that  the  foregoing  conjures  up  and 
clamours  for  light  and  shade ;  the  position  is  admirable, 
but  it  can  only  be  justified  if  the  shade  be  fairly  balanced 
by  the  light.  The  marriage  of  convenience  entails  few 
risks  and  does  not  involve  the  parties  in  struggles  with 
the  world  ;  for  those  who  are  ready  to  admit  that  to  be 
insured  against  unhappiness  is  to  be  happy,  the  institu- 
tion is  admissible,  even  admirable. 

Practically  speaking,  moreover,  the  marriage  of  con- 
venience is  an  effectual  safeguard  against  mesalliances. 
I  do  not  propose  to  claim  the  reader's  sympathy  for  the 
aristocratic  families  whose  scions  evince  a  partiality  for 
the  charms  of  bourgeoises  whose  fathers  they  despise, 
for  it  is  not  certain,  in  such  unions,  which  side  has  the 
better  bargain  ;  yet  it  is  obvious  that  the  classes  do  not, 
as  a  rule,  mix  at  all  successfully.  Differences  of  train- 
ing, and  especially  of  environment,  must  inevitably  tell 
unfavourably ;  however  healthy  the  infusion  of  new 
blood  may  be  as  regards  posterity,  the  parties  them- 
selves must  suffer,  for  marriage  is  not  a  kaleidoscope, 
and  different  colours  are  more  likely  to  clash  than  to 
harmonise. 

Scientifically  and  materially  sound  as  the  marriage 
of  convenience  appears,  it  is  useless  to  endeavour  to 
conceal  from  ourselves  how  unsatisfactory  it  is  at  the 
root-  The  description  I  have  given  must  suggest  a  cold- 
ness with  which  one  could  hardly  credit  warm  French 
hearts  ;  there  is  for  us  something  revolting  in  this  matri- 
monial mercantilism,  something  unexplainable  but 
instinctive.     It    suggests    the    parlour   of   a    nunnery, 

335 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

where  cleanliness  reigns  supreme,  where  austere  beauty 
has  a  home,  but  where  not  a  breath  of  the  surging, 
struggling  humanity  beyond  its  walls  can  hope  to  pene- 
trate. Were  it  not  for  their  well-beloved  children,  married 
couples  would  in  France  be  lonely  and  desolate,  so  that 
the  seed  of  immorality,  thriving  in  the  wastes  where  love 
cannot  take  root,  would  flourish  in  fashion  traditional. 
The  child  is  the  saviour  and  the  fountain  of  peace. 

It  should  not  be  inferred,  however,  that  there  are  in 
France  no  "  love  matches."  They  are  the  rule  among 
the  working  classes  and  are  frequent  in  the  bourgeoisie^ 
facilitated  as  they  are  by  the  institution  of  the  dowry. 
The  dot  is  the  basis  of  most  French  marriages,  arranged 
or  not.  All  classes  are  concerned  with  the  question, 
and  look  upon  the  possession  of  a  dowry  as  the  rule  ; 
indeed,  the  lot  of  those  women  whose  parents  cannot 
give  them  a  marriage  portion  is  a  sad  one  ;  it  usually 
resolves  itself  into  an  unhonoured  spinsterhood,  for  the 
French  have  not  yet  realised  our  vigorous  type  of 
bachelor  girl.  It  is  not  a  sweeping  assertion  to  say  that 
families  who  do  not  set  aside  a  sum,  large  or  small,  as 
a  dowry  for  their  daughters,  are  in  France  the  excep- 
tion ;  whether  we  have  to  deal  with  the  wealthy  who 
think  little  of  dowries  of  ^^4,000  to  ^^ 40,000,  or  with  the 
working  classes  whose  daughters  can  often  defray  the 
cost  of  their  trousseau  and  of  their  furniture,  we  find 
the  idea  of  the  dowry  implanted  in  the  French  mind. 
In  the  same  manner  as  parents  stint  themselves  to 
educate  their  children  and  to  make  provision  for  their 
own  old  age,  they  stint  themselves  to  give  their  daughters 
dowries  that  will  enable  them  to  marry  with  a  fair  chance 
of  success.  Then  the  tragedy  of  thrift  repeats  itself: 
the  duty  is  handed  on  and  willingly  accepted. 


Marriage 


So  deeply  rooted  is  this  idea  of  the  dowry  that  it  is 
recognised  by  military  law,  which  does  not  allow  an 
officer  to  marry  unless  he  and  his  wife  jointly  possess, 
over  and  above  his  pay,  private  means  to  an  amount 
commensurate  with  his  rank.  This  should  not  be  taken 
as  meaning  that  the  undowered  cannot  marry,  but  the 
officer  who  infringes  this  regulation  is  liable  to  a  per- 
fectly legal  penalty.  Such  a  fact  should  demonstrate 
how  ingrained  is  the  theory  that  dowries  are  the  rule, 
not  the  exception. 

Quarrel  as  we  may  with  the  marriage  of  convenience, 
it  is  difficult  to  cavil  at  the  dot.  Is  not  the  frequent 
position  of  the  dowerless  in  Great  Britain  worthy  of 
our  sympathy?  Bred  in  the  tradition  of  sentiment, 
thrown  into  continual  contact  with  one  another,  the 
youth  of  this  country  naturally  form  attachments  without 
regard  for  material  questions  ;  then  comes  the  conflict 
with  parental  prudence  and  the  miseries  that  follow  in 
its  train  ;  interminable  engagements,  waning  hopes  and 
ofttimes  the  death  by  starvation  of  a  tender  sentiment. 
Those  attachments  that  survive  are  made  of  stern  stuff, 
but  is  it  necessary  to  subject  them  to  so  cruel  a  test?  Must 
we  have  a  struggle  for  love  as  well  as  a  struggle  for  life  ? 

The  dowry  would  and  does  obviate  all  this  misery, 
for  it  enables  the  parent,  when  convinced  of  the  sincerity 
and  of  the  character  of  the  suitor,  to  bring  about  the 
marriage  without  undue  delay.  Many  are  the  marriages 
to  which  parents  would  willingly  agree  which  cannot  be 
brought  about  for  years  because  nothing  has  been  set 
aside  for  the  daughters.  Husbands  are  confronted  with 
means  for  one  and  needs  for  two  :  is  it  strange  that  they 
should  prove  reluctant  and  that  our  bachelors  and 
spinsters  should  become  ever  more  numerous  ? 

2  337 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

It  is  neither  necessary  nor  advisable  that  couples 
should,  at  the  outset,  have  large  private  means,  for  they 
will  need  more  as  their  age  and  responsibilities  increase, 
but  surely  there  is  nothing  abnormal  or  mercenary  in 
the  husband's  demand  that  a  wife  should  bring  him  a 
little  more  than  the  burden  of  her  expenditure  and  the 
services  of  a  more  or  less  efficient  housekeeper,  in 
exchange  for  the  increase  in  his  responsibilities,  affection 
being  taken  as  mutual. 

A  dowry  is  better  than  an  inheritance  ;  it  enables  the 
young  to  marry,  for  the  greater  benefit  of  the  race  and 
of  the  happiness  of  their  own  lives.  If  an  endowment 
policy,  maturing  in  its  majority,  could  be  taken  out  at 
birth  for  every  child,  we  should  have  gone  some  way 
towards  procuring  the  happiness  of  the  people  ;  indeed, 
it  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  the  attention  of  the 
legislator  may  ultimately  be  drawn  in  this  direction  and 
that  to  old  age  pensions  and  compulsory  insurance  we 
may  see  added  compulsory  endowment  of  children,  all 
these  funds  being  defrayed  partly  by  the  parents  and 
partly  by  the  State.  This  would  certainly  give  a 
healthy  tone  to  parental  responsibility  .  .  .  but  we 
must  refrain  from  making  an  excursion  into  even  so 
fascinating  a  Utopia, 

Having  thus  reviewed  the  conditions  under  which 
marriage  is  usually  contracted  in  France,  and  outlined 
the  obvious  advantages  and  disadvantages  which  are 
bound  up  in  them,  let  us  turn  to  the  practical  aspects  of 
the  question.  So  far,  our  consideration  has  been  largely 
theoretical,  for  our  analysis  could  only  yield  an  idea  of 
the  probable  results  of  the  French  system  ;  the  test  of 
the  pudding  lying  in  the  eating,  we  must  obviously  in- 
quire as  to  the  effects  upon  marriage  of  the  manifold 

338 


Marriage 


customs  and  precautions  with  which  it  is  hedged  in 
France. 

The  most  interesting  point  is,  beyond  doubt,  the 
prevalent  British  impression  that  infidelity  is  a  feature 
of  French  life  and  that  scruples  on  either  side  are  the 
exception  rather  than  the  rule;  above  all,  it  seems  to 
be  taken  for  granted  that  Frenchmen  of  all  classes  are 
immoral  as  a  matter  of  course  and  that  men  look  upon 
"  second  establishments  "  as  part  of  their  daily  life.  I 
do  not  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  say  that  this  is  a  gross 
slander  and  that  it  becomes  all  the  more  despicable 
because  it  is  so  difficult  to  refute.  All  that  can  be 
arrayed  against  a  sweeping  generality  is  another 
generality,  a  poor  means  of  carrying  conviction,  but  in 
this  case  the  only  means  that  exist.  The  women  of 
France,  to  deal  with  them  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other 
sex,  have  been  vilified  in  so  many  books  and  on  so 
many  stages  that  even  their  compatriots  seem  to  have 
imbibed  the  idea  that  their  morals  are  doubtful. 
Naturally  enough  opinion  abroad  has  followed  suit  and 
has  branded  with  a  common  anathema  one  half  of  the 
French  race. 

It  will  at  once  be  said  that  the  impression  would 
never  have  taken  shape  if  there  had  been  no  grounds 
for  it  and,  in  a  measure,  this  is  the  truth  or  rather  half 
the  truth.  There  is  a  section  of  French  womanhood 
for  which  the  word  "morality"  has  no  meaning,  a  section 
rather  unmoral  than  immoral ;  this  section  is  to  be 
found  mainly  among  the  "Smart  Set"  of  the  great 
cities  :  any  one  who  knows  how  small  a  proportion  of 
the  population  this  represents  will  realise  the  unfairness 
of  judging  the  race  by  this  body.  I  do  not  know  of 
how  many  persons  the  "  upper  ten  thousand  "  are  com- 

339 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
posed,  but  if  there  be  any  justification  for  the  name 
they  would  number  less  than  one  in  four  thousand  of 
our  total  population  !  Let  that  be  as  it  may,  it  remains 
certain  that,  outside  this  class,  we  have  to  deal  with 
different  standards ;  it  is  because  these  people  are 
wealthy,  demoralised  by  their  wealth  and  exposed  to 
the  public  eye,  that  their  lives  form  the  basis  of  the 
sensational  novels  from  which  we  are  given  to  gaining 
an  idea  of  French  morality.  In  the  same  manner  as 
no  novel  could  be  successful,  some  decades  ago,  unless 
its  characters  were  selected  from  the  peerage,  nowadays 
it  appears  to  be  taken  for  granted  by  the  authors  of 
French  yellow-backs  that  the  "smart"  society  of  Paris  and 
its  amorous  excesses  can  alone  supply  readable  matter. 

The  immense  majority  of  the  women  of  the  French 
middle  classes  are  conspicuous  for  rectitude,  even 
rigidity  of  morals ;  their  propriety  often  resolves  itself 
into  prudery  and  pitilessly  narrow  codes  ;  thus  actresses 
and  divorced  women  are  still  outcasts  in  French 
society.  The  marriage  of  convenience  is  calculated  to 
starve  a  woman's  heart  and  to  deliver  her  defenceless 
into  the  hands  of  any  adventurer ;  that  which  the 
husband  cannot  give  would  naturally  be  expected  from 
the  lover  :  yet  this  result  does  not  follow.  French 
women  have,  on  the  one  hand,  an  immense  respect  for 
family  ties  and  shrink  from  all  risks  of  compromission  ; 
on  the  other  hand,  they  do  not  seem  to  make  the 
demand  for  love  that  do  more  sentimental  peoples : 
they  are  inclined  to  seek  satisfaction  in  the  care  of  their 
homes  and  children.  To  place  love  on  a  pedestal  is  to  put 
a  premium  on  passion  ;  where  love  is  largely  replaced 
by  an  affection  grown  strong  by  habit,  such  a  peril  is 
largely  decreased. 

340 


Marriage 


Thus,  as  regards  the  women  of  France,  we  may  look 
upon  the  marriage  of  convenience  as  devoid  of  the 
evils  we  see  in  it ;  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  they 
accept  their  husbands  willingly  and  that  a  man  even 
far  removed  from  the  ideal  normally  occupies  the 
unique  position  of  the  first  lover,  a  position  from 
which  not  even  the  strongest  passion  can  oust  him. 
In  practice,  therefore,  French  women  find  in  marriage 
all  the  satisfactions  they  desire,  simply  because  they 
have  not  been  taught  to  expect  more  than  it  could 
give. 

The  position  of  the  man  is  somewhat  different. 
In  the  first  place,  choice  lies  with  him  to  a  greater 
extent  than  with  his  future  wife ;  man  is  not  so  easily 
coerced  and  gains  far  less  by  marriage  than  woman, 
for  whom  it  means  freedom  and  a  status  which,  even  in 
this  country,  is  refused  to  spinsters.  Thus  personal 
attraction  plays  with  him  a  greater  part,  so  that  he  can 
usually  be  held  to  have  contracted  a  "  love  match." 
In  this  case,  his  problems  are  the  same  as  those 
which  confront  men  in  this  country;  in  the  contrary 
case  his  situation  is  more  complex.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  he  almost  invariably  lives  his  life  before  mar- 
riage, he  enters  upon  matrimony  in  one  of  two  moods : 
he  either  treats  it  lightly  or  he  looks  upon  it  as  a 
refuge  for  his  declining  years.  In  the  latter  case, 
the  chances  of  his  indulging  in  immorality  to  any 
great  extent  are  of  course  small,  as  he  probably  longs 
for  repose  and  for  the  contented  security  of  a  happy 
home. 

The  difficulty  is  greater  when  a  Frenchman  contracts 
a  marriage  of  convenience,  either  lightly  or  with  purely 
mercenary  views.     His  position  is  not  similar  to  that  of 

341 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

his  wife,  for  he  has  probably  drunk  deeply  of  the  sweets 
of  life  and  has  learned  what  pleasures  it  can  provide, 
even  for  jaded  appetites.  After  a  more  or  less  long 
period  of  fidelity  his  past  has  a  tendency  to  rise  before 
his  eyes,  attired  with  all  the  attractive  colours  of  days 
long  ago.  Moreover,  even  if  romance  has  never  been 
born  in  him  or  has  succumbed  to  excesses,  the  original 
attractions  of  his  wife  not  being  very  potent,  her  society 
and  resources  pall  upon  him  and,  if  he  be  fairly  young, 
his  temperament  may  easily  lead  him  astray. 

All  these  are  obvious  perils  bound  up  with  the  mar- 
riage of  convenience  and  I  do  not  contend  that  a 
number  of  Frenchmen  do  not  give  way  before  their 
combination  ;  another  section  is  influenced  by  books, 
the  high  literary  merit  of  which  does  not  palliate  the 
fact  that  they  accustom  the  reader  to  regard  adultery 
as  normal.  But  if  we  exclude  these  two  classes,  and 
there  exists  no  means  of  estimating  exactly  the  numeri- 
cal relation  they  bear  to  the  nation,  we  are  confronted 
with  an  immense  body  of  men  whose  private  life  is 
beyond  reproach.  Without  exaggeration  it  may  be 
said  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  Frenchmen  are, 
in  spite  of  temperament  and  training,  rigidly  faithful 
to  their  marriage  vows.  The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek ; 
the  class  that  contracts  a  marriage  of  convenience  is 
composed,  as  a  rule,  of  men  of  fairly  mature  years. 
They  do  not  necessarily  look  upon  their  union  as  being 
anything  more  than  a  legal  contract ;  the  sacramental 
idea  does  not  enter  their  minds,  and  although  they  are 
not  swayed  by  an  overpowering  sense  of  the  sanctity 
of  contracts,  they  remain,  on  the  whole,  faithful  to 
their  wives. 

As  they  have  no  moral  reason   for  abstention,  the 

342 


Marriage 


conclusion  must  obviously  be  that  they  have  no  desire 
to  break  their  marital  vows.  The  life  that  the  average 
Frenchman  of  thirty  has  led  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
have  deprived  him  of  curiosity,  to  which  characteristic 
we  can  trace  most  of  our  excesses,  and  that  all  the 
world  over.  He  is  probably  satiated,  perhaps  even 
weary  of  adventure  and  all  its  crudity,  its  ugliness ; 
thus,  for  him  marriage  is  a  peaceful  haven  which  he  is 
not  tempted  to  forsake ;  a  gust  of  passion  may  carry 
him  away,  but  it  is  usually  short-lived,  rarely  recurrent : 
the  phenomenon  is  not  confined  to  Frenchmen.  At 
heart,  the  Frenchman,  when  stripped  of  the  affectations 
of  gaudy  cynicism  which  he  feels  he  must  live  up  to,  is 
profoundly  enamoured  of  regular  living,  peace  and 
domestic  happiness.  He  is  not  inclined  to  jeopardise 
these  blessings  and  hardly  desires  to  do  so  :  he  settles 
down,  as  the  saying  goes,  and  that  for  all  time. 

Thus,  it  is  ridiculous  to  refer  to  "second  establish- 
ments "  as  a  feature  of  French  life.  It  has  often  been 
my  fate  to  be  asked  whether  Frenchmen  do  not  look 
upon  the  practice  as  perfectly  normal;  a  moment  of 
thought  should  tell  the  querists  that  it  is  not  given  to 
most  men  to  encounter  the  temptation,  in  view  of  the 
expense  it  entails;  that  alone  would  prove  a  stumbling- 
block,  particularly  for  a  race  neither  liberal  nor  over- 
wealthy.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  practice  is 
nearly  as  common  in  Great  Britain  as  it  is  in  France  : 
the  difference  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  Frenchman  brags 
of  that  which  the  Englishman  conceals.  I  am  not 
attempting  to  prove  that  morality  (as  we  understand 
the  term)  stands  on  as  high  a  pinnacle  in  France  as  it 
does  in  this  country :  that  is  not  the  case,  but  our  im- 
pression of  the  looseness  of  French  morals  is  very  much 

343 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

exaggerated.  Among  the  French  "  Smart  Set "  the 
practice  does  prevail ;  but  "  Smart  Sets "  are  vicious 
all  the  world  over  or  they  would  not  be  "  smart "  ;  the 
bulk  of  the  nation  lives  up  to  a  strict  code,  from  which 
it  does  not  desire  to  break  away.  The  French  concep- 
tion appears  to  be  analogous  to  "  Honesty  is  the  best 
policy,"  which  may  be  profoundly  immoral  in  theory 
though  excellent  in  practice,  but  the  world  does  not 
punish  theories,  so  that  our  attention  must  confine 
itself  to  practical  results. 

It  can  therefore  be  assumed  that  the  majority  of 
Frenchmen  are  either  absolutely  faithful  to  their  mar- 
riage vows  or  that  outbreaks  are  sporadic  and  of  little 
practical  effect.  I  may  be  charged  with  preaching  an 
immoral  doctrine,  but  if  we  remember  that  our  moral 
laws  are  generally  based  on  practical  effects,  it  may  be 
admitted  that  the  latter  state  of  things  is  less  dreadful 
than  it  appears  to  be  doctrinaire.  Besides,  we  must 
take  into  account  the  influence  of  literature  and  of 
public  opinion  before  we  brand  other  men's  standards 
as  immoral.  It  is  greatly  to  the  credit  of  the  French 
that  they  have  not  given  way  to  the  influence  of  their 
writers  more  than  they  have  and  that  families  have  not 
complacently  accepted  the  putting  into  practice  of 
literary  preaching. 

It  should  be  said,  in  this  connection,  that  the  accusa- 
tion levelled  at  the  French  of  accepting  the  state  of 
things  that  our  prejudices  have  conjured  up  is  neither 
more  nor  less  true,  on  the  whole,  than  the  other 
charges.  In  those  classes  where  infidelity  is  recog- 
nised, and  they  are  small,  carelessness  naturally  pre- 
vails ;  among  the  sections  which  do  not  admit  in- 
fidelity, there  is,  of  course,  no  toleration.     There  are 

344 


Marriage 

cases  where  a  French  wife  will  close  her  eyes  to  the 
occasional  vagaries  of  her  husband,  but  most  wives  have 
something  to  overlook :  in  this  case  toleration  goes 
a  step  further  and  is  not  often  required.  Husbands 
hardly  ever  accept  such  a  position,  however  irregular 
their  own  conduct  may  be,  and  indulge  in  ferocious 
jealousy,  in  which  they  are  supported  by  the  law ;  in 
general,  both  sexes  are  keenly  concerned  to  maintain 
the  bond  and  guard  it  with  equal  jealousy. 

Setting  aside  the  question  of  morality,  the  results  of 
French  marriages  are  interesting  as  regards  the  chil- 
dren. It  is  unnecessary  to  say  more  on  this  subject 
than  has  already  been  said  in  the  chapter  on  "  The 
French  Woman."  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that 
the  marriage  of  convenience  makes  for  devoted  parental 
love.  Affection  has  limits  and  it  is  not  easy,  for  a  wife 
particularly,  to  apportion  fairly  the  shares  of  husband 
and  children  :  the  coming  of  the  child  too  often  means 
that  a  wife  must  choose  :  this  she  does  according  to 
her  temperament,  as  a  born  mother  or  as  a  born  wife. 
The  Weininger  theory  admits  of  no  intermediate  posi- 
tion ;  it  is  a  sweeping  assumption,  but  one  which  is,  on 
the  whole,  true.  This  problem,  which  naturally  arises 
in  "  love  matches,"  does  not  bulk  largely  in  the  lives  of 
those  who  marry  for  convenience;  there  only  a  moderate 
degree  of  regard  exists,  so  that  the  coming  of  the  child 
provokes  no  crisis :  the  immense  reserves  of  love  that 
have  not  been  expended  by  the  parents  on  one  another 
are  available  for  the  child,  who  naturally  reaps  the 
full  benefit  and  becomes  the  sole  object  of  parental 
solicitude. 

To  sum  up  the  position,  it  may  be  said  that  the  mar- 
riage of  convenience  represents  a  state  of  balance ;  in 

345 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
its  train  follow  peace,  sound  domestic  finance,  education 
and  training  for  the  child,  comfort  for  its  elders.  It 
is  comparable  with  a  machine,  smooth-running  and 
noiseless,  unlikely  to  get  out  of  order,  efficient  and 
satisfactory.  The  ideal  marriage  of  convenience  would 
be  the  ideal  scientific  marriage,  where  physiological  and 
psychological  traits  would  be  analysed  to  a  nicety  with 
a  view  to  the  production  in  their  offspring  of  a  bio- 
logically perfect  state  of  equilibrium. 

The  practical  marriage  of  convenience  is  not  the 
scientific  marriage,  but  it  appears  to  work  exceedingly 
well ;  the  records  of  the  police  and  divorce  courts  are 
no  guide,  as  the  tragedies  we  know  of  do  not  count 
for  as  much  as  the  untold  suffering  that  is  borne  in 
secret.  The  general  air  of  content  and  prosperity  that 
is  seen  in  French  families  points  to  the  success  of  the 
system  wherever  it  is  applied.  There  are  in  France 
many  households  where  regard  was  the  original  bond, 
but  there  are  many  more  where  regard  has  been  the 
outcome  of  marriage  and  whose  happiness  is  perpetually 
unruffled. 

This  summing  up  appears  favourable  to  the  institu- 
tion, as  must  needs  be  the  case  when  one  wishes  to 
deal  in  strict  fairness  with  a  system  one  dislikes.  Ex- 
cellent as  it  may  appear,  the  marriage  of  convenience 
is  and  must  remain  deeply  distasteful  to  British  minds. 
It  is  notorious  that  the  practice  is  becoming  more  fre- 
quent in  this  country,  as  desires  and  general  luxurious- 
ness  increase,  but  it  has  not  taken  root  firmly,  nor  can 
it  while  we  remain  a  sentimental  people.  The  very 
virtues  of  the  marriage  of  convenience  are  the  chief 
counts  on  which  we  can  indict  it ;  its  balance  and 
solidity  are  fraught  with  coldness  and  hardness,  elements 

346 


Marriage 


which  must  necessarily  detract  from  its  value  and  in- 
deed almost  nullify  it,  if  we  admit  marriage  as  a  spiritual 
bond  or  even  as  a  union  of  heart  and  intellect.  The 
marriage  of  convenience  is  suitable  for  those  who  do 
not  naturally  rebel  against  it,  for  men  who  desire 
naught  but  money  and  for  women  whose  wish  is  for 
liberty ;  believers  in  the  communion  of  spirit  and  the 
mutual  support  of  affection  must  necessarily  regard  it 
as  an  insult  to  their  illusions  and  as  a  negation  of  all 
the  principles  that  they  hold  most  dear. 


347 


CHAPTER   XVII 
MORALITY 

A  CHAPTER  on  this  'subject  may  appear  super- 
fluous in  view  of  that  which  has  already  been 
said  on  marriage  in  France.  In  that  particular  study 
many  sidelights  are  thrown  on  the  subject,  and  it  no 
doubt  touches  upon  an  important  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion— the  morality  of  the  people  in  the  married  state. 
Morality  has,  however,  a  more  comprehensive  meaning; 
it  is  concerned  with  the  unmarried  also  and  with  the 
intent  as  well  as  with  the  action.  Thus  it  becomes 
interesting  to  ascertain  the  factors  which  influence  the 
French  attitude  towards  morality  in  its  broader  bear- 
ing. 

I  must  of  course  repeat  that  by  "  morality "  I  mean 
the  British  code ;  definitions  are  always  necessary  when 
any  subject  has  to  be  discussed  and  none  requires 
precision  more  urgently  than  this,  because  there  is  no 
absolute  morality  any  more  than  there  is  absolute 
beauty.  Even  in  our  own  race  we  find  wide  variations  ; 
the  privileges  of  the  Lord  of  the  Manor  as  regards  the 
womenkind  of  his  tenants  have  evolved  since  the  days 
of,  say,  William  the  Conqueror,  in  a  direction  which  we 
consider  to  be  satisfactory.  This  is  no  doubt  satisfac- 
tory, but  we  must  remember  that,  in  the  days  of  the 
Conqueror,  these  rights  were  not  looked  upon  as  con- 

348 


Morality 


trary  to  morality ;  inasmuch  as  differences  of  period 
and  of  civilisation  influence  the  problem  so  deeply,  we 
must  refrain  from  hastily  branding  with  the  word 
"  immoral "  those  practices  which  differ  from  our  own 
standards.  If  we  hold  with  Ingersoll  that  morality  is 
"  perceived  obligation,"  then  he  who  does  not  perceive 
is  absolved  from  the  charge  of  immorality.  He  may 
be  non-moral,  but  if  we  pardon  an  agnostic  or  a  Laodi- 
cean where  we  condemn  an  atheist,  we  can  hardly  con- 
demn the  man  who  does  not  possess  a  moral  sense. 

All  this  must  be  borne  in  mind  when  dealing  with  the 
French,  a  simple,  clever  and  hard-headed  folk.  Their 
point  of  view  differs  from  ours  ;  education  and  sur- 
roundings in  both  countries  cannot  be  compared  :  thus 
they  have  naturally  developed  on  different  lines,  morally 
as  well  as  intellectually.  On  the  whole  the  differences 
are  not  very  great,  far  less  than  between,  say,  Scotchmen 
and  Italians,  but  they  are  sufficiently  distinct  to  form 
the  basis  of  a  comparison. 

Generally  speaking,  the  British  code  being  adopted 
as  a  standard  (and  it  matters  little  how  high  or  how 
low  a  standard  be,  provided  it  be  kept  in  mind),  it  may 
be  said  that  the  French  are  morally  slack  in  proportion 
to  the  difference  of  latitude  ;  no  originality  is  claimed 
for  this  rediscovery  of  America,  but  the  fact  is  worth 
restating  as  it  is  singularly  apparent  that  codes  become 
more  rigid  as  we  go  further  north.  Thus,  as  France  is 
the  Central  European  nation,  her  standards  probably 
rank  between  the  rigidity  of  the  North  and  the  laxness 
of  the  South.  I  advisedly  say  "  standards,"  for  practice 
too  often  falls  short  of  theory,  but  they  represent  fairly 
accurately  if  not  that  which  the  nation  is,  at  least  that 
which  it  would  like  to  be.     In  this  case,  again,  France 

349 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
appears  as  an  average  nation  ;  according  to  our  ideas 
her  moral  theories  are  lax,  just  as  they  appear  strict 
to  the  Southern  European.  If  it  be  true  that  to 
satisfy  no  extremists  is  evidence  of  wisdom,  then  the 
moral  code  of  France  should  be  about  ideal.  I  do  not 
contend  that  this  is  the  case,  as  it  is  not  possible  to 
schedule  codes  on  a  mathematical  basis,  but  it  is  pos- 
sible. 

It  is,  however,  with  the  standard  code  of  Great  Britain 
that  the  French  code  must  be  compared  and  at  once 
we  find  differences  of  outlook.  The  race  is  over-sexed, 
owing  to  causes  of  which  more  will  be  said,  and  it  attaches 
importance  to  questions  of  which  the  somewhat  stolid 
British  race  has  but  little  idea.  This  country  is  not 
interested  in  sex,  whereas  France  looks  upon  it  as  an 
important  matter,  just  as  the  South  looks  upon  it  as 
all-important.  Thus  a  difference  in  point  of  view 
appears  at  once ;  we  are,  in  this  country,  either  careless 
of  sex  problems,  the  discussion  of  which  is  looked  upon 
as  the  outcome  of  prurient  speculation,  or  ashamed  of 
our  interest  in  the  question  and  anxious  to  conceal  it ; 
in  France  sex  problems  attract  general  attention  and 
are  openly  discussed  in  public  and  in  private.  A  keener 
and  clearer  idea  of  sex  relations  is  thus  gained,  which 
may  not  be  without  value,  whatever  evils  may  follow  on 
the  acquisition  of  such  knowledge. 

Enough  has  been  said  of  women  in  a  special  chapter, 
both  married  and  single ;  the  general  impression  is 
favourable  and  I  do  not  think  that  their  standard  is  any 
lower  than  that  of  their  English  sisters ;  indeed,  they 
cultivate  a  greater  strictness  in  social  relations :  the 
slightest  breath  of  suspicion  endangers  any  French- 
woman's position  and  a  divorce  is  beyond  forgiveness. 

350 


Morality 


In  this  respect  British  and  particularly  London  society 
cannot  boast  itself  superior.  Men  are,  however,  in  a 
different  position ;  when  married  they  are  usually  abso- 
lutely faithful  to  their  wives  or  do  not  err  very  far  ;  I 
do  not  suppose  that  they  compare  very  unfavourably 
with  equivalent  classes  in  this  country,  but  there  lies  an 
abyss  between  French  and  British  when  we  have  to 
deal  with  the  single  man. 

Charges  are  always  levelled  at  the  bachelor  and  no 
doubt  justifiably  so ;  I  do  not  want  to  defend  him  in  the 
abstract,  but  we  should  remember,  in  passing,  that 
bachelordom  is  an  artificial  state  for  man  and  that  he 
cannot  be  expected  to  live  a  natural  life.  In  France, 
the  conditions  that  tend  towards  this  result  prevail  as 
they  do  in  Great  Britain  ;  the  bachelor  too  often  lives 
alone  and  lacks  purpose  and  resource  when  the  day's 
work  is  at  an  end  ;  he  does  not  indulge  much  in  the 
nerve  tonic  of  athletics,  as  a  result  of  which  his  thoughts 
would  wander  naturally,  even  if  he  were  not  surrounded 
by  temptation  and  the  artificial  incitements  of  the  stage 
and  literature. 

From  the  British  point  of  view  the  standards  of  the 
French  bachelor  must  necessarily  appear  low ;  this  is 
no  doubt  true  as  regards  the  bulk  of  the  class.  His 
interest  in  woman  is  usually  his  sole  hobby  and  he 
tends  to  regard  all  women  as  legitimate  objects  for 
conquest ;  thus  he  becomes  a  master  of  the  arts  of 
Eros  and,  as  he  rises  in  the  esteem  of  his  fellows  in 
direct  ratio  to  his  success,  he  has  a  tendency  to  trans- 
form his  hobby  into  an  occupation.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  moral  purity,  as  we  understand  the  term,  is 
practically  unknown  among  French  bachelors,  except 
the  naturally  weakly  and  occasional  theorists ;  whereas 

351 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

a  large  section  of  our  population  appears  to  lead  a 
single  life  contentedly  enough,  the  Frenchman  looks 
upon  the  pursuit  of  woman  as  normal,  even  as  a  duty 
which  he  owes  his  manhood.  Above  all,  it  should  be 
noted  that  he  is  usually  without  scruple  and  will  rarely 
hesitate  to  take  advantage  of  an  opportunity,  or  even 
to  create  it,  regardless  of  the  suffering  it  may  entail : 
for  him  the  pursuit  is  an  elegant  game  in  which  all  is 
legitimate  and  no  one  sacred. 

The  marriage  of  convenience  is  perhaps  somewhat  to 
blame,  a  fact  which  may  be  confirmed  by  the  curious 
difference  in  attitude  of  most  Frenchmen  towards  their 
friends'  wives  as  opposed  to  their  mistresses.  I  do  not 
say  that  this  attitude  is  entirely  attributable  to  a  reflex 
process  but  it  is  suggestive;  the  average  French 
bachelor  will  not  hesitate  to  lead  astray  the  wife  of  his 
friend,  undeterred  by  any  consideration  of  the  happi- 
ness of  the  family  or  even  for  her  children  if  she  have 
any.  He  is  either  careless  of  the  results  or  confident, 
in  spite  of  experience,  that  the  intrigue  will  remain 
undetected  ;  in  fact,  many  a  Frenchman  attaches  him- 
self more  particularly  to  married  women,  for  reasons 
which  it  would  be  unpleasant  to  enter  into,  but  which 
will  suggest  themselves.  As  opposed  to  this,  most  of 
them  appear  to  look  upon  their  friend's  mistress  as 
removed  from  the  field  and  to  consider  it  somewhat  dis- 
graceful to  attempt  to  become  his  rival.  Singular  as 
the  point  of  view  may  appear  at  first  sight,  it  is  the 
natural  outcome  of  the  conception  of  the  marriage  of 
convenience,  which  is  considered  as  resting  upon  a 
purely  practical  basis  and  not  on  mutual  regard,  whereas 
an  irregular  relation  can  proceed  only  from  personal 
attraction.     Thus    the    sanctity   of   the   marriage   tie, 

352 


Morality 


which  is  respected  by  most  Englishmen,  is  transferred 
in  France  to  relationships  the  irregularity  of  which  does 
not  do  away  with  the  sentimental  element.  This  may 
not  be  the  real  explanation,  but  it  is  certainly  possible 
and,  in  any  case,  the  phenomenon  is  peculiar. 

As  regards  the  attitude  of  Frenchmen  to  single 
women,  one  cannot  very  well  differentiate  it  from  that 
of  men  of  other  races ;  the  fact  that  girls  of  the  middle 
classes  lead  sheltered  lives  places  them  beyond  the 
scope  of  discussion  ;  as  regards  the  working  classes, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  standards  roughly  approxi- 
mate to  those  accepted  in  this  and  other  countries. 
The  only  noteworthy  fact  is  again  that  no  secret  is 
made  of  irregular  relations  in  all  classes  of  society.  In 
Great  Britain,  particularly  in  certain  industrial  towns, 
illegitimate  unions  are  numerous,  but  prevail  only 
among  the  lowest  ranks  ;  in  France  the  irregular  line 
includes  a  more  cultured  section  who  do  not  hesitate  to 
flaunt  their  emancipation.  We  must  also  note  in  this 
connection,  that,  among  the  working  classes,  many 
irregular  unions  are  due  to  the  restrictions  of  the 
marriage  law.  Parental  opposition  often  makes  mar- 
riage impossible  for  some  years  ;  then  the  parties  break 
through  the  restraint,  live  irregular  lives  on  a  regular 
basis,  acknowledge  the  children  of  the  union,  if  any, 
and  often  marry  ultimately  when  conditions  make  it 
possible.  This  is  not  regarded  as  immorality,  but  as 
temporary  emancipation  from  morality. 

Without  displaying  cheap  cynicism,  it  may  safely  be 
said  that  the  superiority  of  our  moral  standard  is 
mainly  due  to  the  clamour  of  a  puritan  party,  to  the 
influence  of  which  we  owe  stringent  police  regulations 
against  which  no  section  can  decently  protest.  In  our 
2  A  353 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

present  state  of  imperfection,  penalties  and  difficulties 
are  the  best  means  to  curb  our  excesses ;  these  restraints 
are  applied  in  this  country,  whilst  there  is  no  puritan 
party  in  France  to  demand  their  imposition.  The 
vigilance  of  British  authorities  has  resulted  in  com- 
pulsory vigilance  on  the  part  of  houseowners,  and 
established  among  them,  by  fear,  that  which  moral 
teaching  might  not  have  implanted ;  thus  the  diffi- 
culties that  lie  in  the  path  of  irregularity  in  Great 
Britain  and  the  expenditure  entailed  have  served  up  to 
a  point  to  keep  up  public  standards.  In  France  this  is 
not  the  case,  as  public  opinion  is  careless  and  the 
authorities  commensurately  tolerant. 

In  the  chapter  dealing  with  the  birthrate  in  France, 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  often  artificially  restricted,  at 
any  rate  that  it  does  not  tend  towards  an  increase. 
It  is  possible  that  the  French  race  has  lost  much  of  its 
fertility,  so  that  the  figures  that  follow  may  lose  some 
of  their  weight ;  they  are,  however,  worthy  of  being 
quoted.  Careless  immorality  does  not  prevail  to  such 
an  extent  in  France  as  it  does  in  this  country,  yet  it 
appears  that  figures  dealing  with  illegitimate  births 
should  roughly  represent  the  state  of  things  ;  at  any 
rate,  for  purposes  of  comparison,  it  seems  fair  to  take 
these  figures  as  a  basis  if  we  adjust  them  to  the  known 
conditions  of  national  morality.  It  is  undeniable  that 
the  proportion  of  illegitimate  births  is  unduly  high  in 
France,  for  it  reaches  the  figure  of  89  out  of  every 
1000.  About  a  quarter  of  these  births  are  recognised 
by  parents,  so  that  the  anomaly  disappears,  but  this 
does  not  bear  upon  the  question  if  we  only  wish  to  as- 
certain to  what  extent  irregular  unions  prevail. 

To  do  this,  there  appears  to  be  no  better  means  than 

354 


Morality 


a  comparison  with  the  figures  of  illegitimate  births  per 
1000  collected  from  the  official  returns  of  other  nations; 
the  following  table  will  therefore  prove  of  interest : — 


France     . 

89  per 

1000 

Norway    . 

.     70  per  1000 

England  and 

Germany 

84    ,,      „ 

Wales  . 

40    „ 

Japan 

94-    „      „ 

Scotland . 

64S, 

Hungary 

94    „      „ 

Ireland    . 

26    „ 

De?imark 

96    „      „ 

Holland  . 

22    „ 

Portugal . 

^-^^    »      „ 

Russia     . 

26    „ 

Sweden    . 

J-^7    „      „ 

Switzerland 

46    „ 

Austria  . 

130   „      „ 

Italy 

55    » 

Roumania 

180    „      „ 

Belgium  . 

66    „ 

The  above  table  contains  statistics  from  most  Euro- 
pean countries,  except  the  Balkan  States  which  either 
give  unsatisfactory  returns  or  none,  and  Greece  and 
Spain  for  which  no  reliable  figures  are  available.  Japan 
is  included  as  interesting,  if  not  conclusive,  and  the 
United  States  are  omitted  because  the  system  of  State 
registration  makes  compilation  a  complex  matter  owing 
to  differences  of  legal  point  of  view.  The  table  is, 
however,  sufficiently  complete  to  be  taken  as  a  basis 
and,  from  it,  the  most  suggestive  conclusions  can  be 
drawn. 

From  our  point  of  view,  the  first  is  the  superiority  of 
Great  Britain  as  a  whole,  in  spite  of  the  comparatively 
high  Scottish  ratio;  it  is  unnecessary  to  analyse  the 
causes  and  the  fact  remains  that  our  rate  does  not 
exceed  half  that  of  France.  This  is  a  matter  for  con- 
gratulation, but  it  does  not  entitle  us  to  brand  the 
French  as  the  immoral  race  par  excellence  if  we  consider 
the  case  of  other  European  nations.     However  open  to 

^  The  latest  return  gives  69  per  1000. 

355 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

suspicion  the  figures  relating  to  Roumania  may  be,  it 
will  not  be  argued  that  Sweden,  Denmark  and  Austria 
are  on  a  low  level  of  civilisation  ;  yet  we  find  the  rate 
of  the  former  exceeds  that  of  France  by  about  a  third, 
whilst  Austria's  illegitimate  births  average  half  as  many 
again  as  those  of  France,  and  Denmark  also  stands 
much  higher  in  the  list.  Germany,  the  home  of 
domestic  virtue,  nearly  reaches  the  French  standard, 
which,  again,  is  entirely  eclipsed  by  those  of  Hungary 
and  Portugal. 

It  is  therefore  idle  to  call  the  French  immoral,  for 
immorality  is  purely  comparative  ;  in  general  it  may  be 
said  that  "  immoral "  means  "  less  moral  than  one- 
self" and,  if  that  be  so,  the  French  may  well  point 
the  finger  of  scorn  at  other  nations  in  all  four  quarters 
of  Europe.  However,  I  do  not  wish  to  lay  too  much 
stress  on  this  point ;  it  is  enough  to  note  it,  as  it  will 
serve  to  silence  the  more  active  forms  of  libel. 

It  is  hardly  fair  to  say  that  nations  are  moral  when 
their  laws  are  harsh,  and  immoral  when  their  laws  are 
lax  ;  there  is  a  subtle  connection  between  crime  and 
penalty,  as  is  shown  by  statistics ;  there  is  a  point 
below  which  penalties  no  longer  deter  and  another  level 
above  which  they  are  equally  unavailing.  The  penalty 
of  death  for  theft,  for  instance,  never  served  to  eradicate 
that  form  of  crime,  nor  did  the  abolition  of  the  penalty 
appreciably  increase  its  prevalence.  Yet  the  Law  has 
some  influence  on  crime  and  also  on  that  which  is 
looked  upon  as  immoral  by  organised  Society.  It  may 
therefore  be  interesting  to  note  a  few  points  with 
regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  French  Code  in  this 
connection. 

The  French  law  may  be  just  but  it  is  extremely  harsh, 


I 


Morality 

because  it  persistently  disregards  the  interests  of  the 
individual  whenever  they  clash  with  those  of  the 
family.  The  legislator  has  invariably  kept  in  mind 
the  desirability  of  placing  the  family  on  a  firm  footing, 
and  of  protecting  it  against  possible  disruption.  Thus 
the  Code  has  taken  an  uncompromising  attitude  against 
illegitimate  children,  in  common  with  most  laws,  but 
in  a  particularly  harsh  spirit  ;  the  illegitimate  child 
has  no  name  but  that  of  its  mother,  and  the  law  pro- 
vides no  machinery  for  discovering  the  father.  There 
can  be  no  affiliation  proceedings  in  France,  whatever 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  ;  in  the  words  of  the  Code, 
"  No  illegitimate  child  may  attempt  to  ascertain  the 
name  of  its  father."  It  matters  little  that  the  most 
brutal  forms  of  deception  and  treachery  may  have  been 
resorted  to  :  the  matter  cannot  even  be  ventilated,  for 
proceedings  cannot  be  taken.  The  legislator  has  but 
one  object :  to  hush  up  a  possible  scandal,  which  might 
break  up  a  family  or  force  it  to  agree  to  a  marriage 
it  dislikes.  Criminal  proceedings  may  be  instituted 
against  the  offender  if  he  has  not  respected  the  rights 
of  parents  under  the  law,  i.e.  effected  an  abduction,  but 
the  individual  as  an  individual  receives  no  protec- 
tion. 

The  Code  allows  the  father  to  recognise  his  illegiti- 
mate child  at  birth  or  later,  in  which  case  the  ban  is 
removed,  but  this  cannot  be  done  if  the  child  be  the 
offspring  of  adultery.  This  unfortunately  numerous 
class  is  nameless  and  devoid  of  all  rights  to  inheritance; 
their  disabilities  cannot  even  be  removed  by  the  indi- 
vidual, for  the  law  will  not  allow  an  illegitimate  child  to 
participate  in  the  inheritance  of  children  born  in  wed- 
lock.    Tt  is  not   even    certain   whether   the   new   law, 

357 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

allowing  of  the  marriage  of  divorced  persons  with  co- 
respondents, will  regularise  their  position. 

As  regards  the  latter  question,  up  to  1906  the  law 
had  taken  a  firm  stand  against  adultery  by  decfreeing 
that  divorced  persons  could  not  marry  co-respondents  ; 
it  is  notorious  that  many  of  the  cases  decided  in  British 
Courts  end  in  such  marriages  :  in  France  it  was  hoped 
to  restrict  adultery  by  preventing  remarriage.  Practice 
did  not  show  that  this  result  had  been  attained,  and, 
as  it  served  no  useful  purpose  and  only  led  to  consider- 
able unhappiness,  the  law  was  repealed,  so  that  French 
and  British  custom  have  now  come  into  line. 

Apart  from  the  question  of  morality,  minor  facts 
show  how  deeply  concerned  the  legislator  is  with  the 
stability  of  the  family.  He  decrees,  for  instance,  that 
all  children  born  in  wedlock  are  deemed  to  be  the 
husband's  and,  in  the  case  of  widows  and  divorced 
women,  secures  this  by  prohibiting  their  remarriage 
for  ten  months  following  on  the  death  of  the  first 
husband  or  on  the  decree  of  divorce,  whilst  a  man  may 
remarry  without  delay.  Such  small  facts  are  signifi- 
cant and  shed  a  strong  light  upon  the  mental  outlook 
of  the  French.  Taken  as  a  whole,  every  allowance 
being  made  for  the  demands  of  expediency,  French 
morality  reaches  neither  a  very  low  nor  a  very  high 
standard.  It  is  probably  inferior  (on  stereotyped  lines) 
to  British  standards,  just  as  it  is  superior  to  those  of 
the  South  ;  when  we  consider  the  conditions  of  French 
life,  it  is  a  matter  for  surprise  that  the  standard  is  so 
high  as  it  is. 

It  is  undeniable  and  unfortunate  that,  in  France,  sex 
interests  are  too  prominent,  and  that  the  whole  nation 
is  oversexed.     So  much  has  been  said  on  the  subject  in 

358 


Morality 


other  chapters  that  I  need  not  examine  once  more  the 
relation  of  the  sexes.  The  fact  that  they  are  segregated 
makes  for  mystery,  but  it  also  makes  for  a  keen  desire 
for  enlightenment ;  too  much  liberty  may  produce  dan- 
gerous licence,  but  no  liberty  at  all  infallibly  produces 
curiosity,  the  unhealthy  root  of  most  human  sins.  Had 
the  precept  of  Michelet,  "  If  I  had  a  daughter  I  would 
teach  her  anatomy,"  been  applied  in  a  liberal  spirit,  it 
is  likely  that  sex  differences  would  not  have  resulted  in 
such  mutual  keenness  of  interest. 

The  influences  that  act  upon  the  French  are,  however, 
rather  external  than  internal ;  if  we  make  every  allow- 
ance for  the  unnatural  stirring  of  feeling  caused  by 
segregation,  we  cannot  by  those  means  alone  explain 
the  fact  that  Frenchmen  are  usually  so  steeped  as  they 
are  in  sex  interests.  Sensuality  does  not  seem  to  be 
common  to  all  human  beings  ;  indeed,  many  appear  to 
be  either  partly  or  entirely  devoid  of  it,  or  to  be  able 
to  hold  it  in  check  so  successfully  that  it  does  not 
manifest  itself  This  large  section,  units  of  which  are 
so  often  to  be  met  with  in  this  country,  would  normally 
exist  in  France  if  it  were  not  modified  by  well-defined 
circumstances.  If  this  colder  part  of  the  nation  has 
been  brought  into  line  with  the  rest,  it  is  mainly  be- 
cause it  has  been  driven  on  by  the  perpetual  incite- 
ments of  literature,  the  drama  and  the  arts. 

To  the  influence  of  these  three  factors  we  can  boldly 
ascribe  the  sensuous  turn  of  the  French  temperament ; 
by  them  the  eye  and  the  ear  of  the  people  are  con- 
tinuously assaulted,  in  every  place  and  under  all  con- 
ditions. Literature,  above  all,  has  settled  into  an 
abnormal  groove,  while  British  literature  has  done  the 
same  in  an  opposite  direction  ;  as  a  French  journalist 

359 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

put  it  wittily,  "  In  English  you  always  marry  and  in 
French  never."  It  is  not  a  sweeping  assertion  to  say 
that  modern  French  novels  invariably  deal  with  the 
relations  of  the  sexes  and  that  their  starting  point  is 
usually  marriage ;  when  it  is  not  marriage,  as  a  rule 
the  developments  are  beyond  ordinary  conception  and 
the  novelist  revels  in  nauseating  fancies.  The  com- 
moner type  of  novel,  corresponding  to  the  ordinary 
English  six-shilling  story,  deals  as  a  matter  of  course 
with  adultery ;  it  assumes  the  marriage  of  convenience, 
introduces  the  lover  or  the  mistress  or  both,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  unfold  the  everlasting  tale  of  intrigue  and 
secrecy.  From  time  to  time,  a  seriously  conceived  pro- 
blem is  worked  out  on  Ibsenian  lines,  but  this  is  the 
exception  :  the  object  of  the  French  novelist  usually 
appears  to  be  to  crowd  into  his  book  as  many  sug- 
gestive scenes  and  details  as  possible.  The  triumph  of 
the  French  novel  was  characteristically  shown  by  a 
catch  phrase  concerning  a  certain  novel,  which  was 
current  in  1898  and  1899,  "Have  you  read  page  14?" 
In  that  sentence  lies  the  key  to  the  mystery  of  the 
French  novel. 

Another  aspect  of  French  literature  is  also  char- 
acteristic of  the  last  decade.  An  extraordinary  degree 
of  interest  has  been  aroused  by  novels  dealing  with 
classical  times,  particularly  in  Rome,  Greece  and 
Carthage.  Under  the  plea  of  "  art,"  a  fallacious  excuse 
for  facile  pornography,  the  most  unashamed  descrip- 
tions of  the  lower  aspects  of  decadent  antiquity  are 
given  every  day :  Greek  orgies  are  fashionable  and 
make  very  good  reading  for  those  whose  interest  in 
the  misdoings  of  the  "Smart  Set"  has  waned.  It  may 
be  art  of  the  "  Living  Statue "  type,  but  it  raises  its 

360 


Morality- 


devotees  to  a  great  height  of  conceit ;  they  insolently 
profess  realism  and  most  successfully  attain  degraded 
artificiality. 

These  are  the  subjects  on  which  French  novels  have 
for  many  years  been  based,  and  this  is  the  intellectual 
pabulum  of  a  large  section  of  the  people ;  no  wonder 
that  continual  reiteration  has  accustomed  them  to  re- 
gard a  low  standard  of  morals  as  normal  and  absten- 
tion as  little  short  of  unnatural.  Indeed,  so  jaded  have 
their  intellectual  appetites  become  that  novelists  are 
daily  descending  deeper  into  the  abyss  of  neurosis,  and 
make  frantic  efforts  to  lay  before  the  public  something 
that  will  arouse  its  interest.  I  cannot  dilate  upon  this 
subject,  as  the  English  language  invariably  turns  the 
licentious  into  the  coarse ;  let  it  suffice  that  the  latter- 
day  tendency  is  to  exhume  for  the  benefit  of  the 
moderns  all  the  sensual  practices  of  antiquity,  shrouded 
in  the  trappings  of  a  decadent  art,  shrinking  at  no 
vices,  trammelled  by  no  law. 

Impure  as  the  French  novel  may  be,  it  finds  its  equal 
in  the  French  drama  ;  it  is  rare  for  literature  to  be  on  a 
low  moral  level  without  the  Stage  making  full  use  of  its 
advantages  to  equal  it.  Setting  aside  the  serious  plays, 
to  which  unstinted  tribute  has  been  paid  in  the  special 
chapter  dealing  with  them,  we  find  that  the  lighter  side 
of  drama  is  nothing  but  a  perpetual  incitement  to  moral 
laxity.  If,  in  Great  Britain,  we  could  draw  distinctions 
in  the  same  manner,  which  we  can  hardly  do  owing  to 
our  lack  of  serious  plays,  a  perfect  comparison  might  be 
instituted  between  our  farces  and  those  of  France  ;  this, 
however,  we  can  hardly  do  because  they  differ  pro- 
foundly in  spirit.  British  farces,  or  comedies  as  they 
are  called,  aim  purely  at  entertaining  and,  to  that  effect, 

361 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

take  advantage  of  the  ordinary  comic  situations  of  life 
and  of  the  peculiarities  of  persons  and  classes  ;  occasion- 
ally a  spice  of  the  irregular  is  introduced,  but  covertly 
and  not  with  the  vievi^  of  enlisting  the  sympathies  of  the 
audience.  In  France,  characters  whom  we  would  look 
upon  as  the  villains,  such  as  a  Letchmere  or  an 
Illingworth,  are  the  heroes ;  their  amorous  prowess  is 
accounted  a  virtue  and  the  rectitude  of  a  portion  of  the 
cast  is  made  the  butt  of  all  the  witticisms.  The  stage 
husband  scores  but  rarely ;  as  a  rule  he  is  made  out 
either  a  brute  or  a  fool,  either  intolerably  cynical 
and  immoral  or  inept,  gullible  and  sunk  in  dull  conceit. 
More  often  still,  the  writer  of  light  French  plays  shows 
us  a  complete  little  world  engaged  in  gratifying  its 
passions,  every  one  illicit,  in  an  absolutely  unscrupulous 
manner.  Both  men  and  women  are  shown  deceiving 
one  another,  openly  bragging  of  their  triumphs  and 
merrily  succeeding  in  escaping  punishment.  Thus 
every  one  of  the  spectators  is  taught  that  sin  carries  no 
wages,  a  fact  which  reiteration  may  ultimately  lead 
some  to  accept. 

Over  and  above  the  lighter  forms  of  farce,  vaudeville 
and  music-hall  sketches,  the  writers  of  semi-serious  plays 
are  also  to  blame.  They,  too,  tend  to  take  marriage  as 
a  starting  point  and  to  work  up,  by  the  assumption  of 
solemn  theories,  to  its  disruption  and  to  the  triumph  of 
the  illicit.  Some  of  the  serious  plays  even  succumb  to 
the  temptation  and  are  likely  to  be  even  more  harmful 
than  light  comedy,  when  constructed  on  these  lines, 
owing  to  the  skill  of  the  craftsman  and  the  plausibility 
of  the  theories  which  he  advances.  Taking  the  French 
drama  as  a  whole,  it  may  be  said  that  plays  dealing 
with  sex  questions  have  a  tendency  to  ridicule  stereo- 

362 


Morality- 


typed  virtue  and  to  glorify  that  which  we  call  vice. 
I  do  not  think  that  plays  have  a  very  demoralising 
effect,  for  most  people  do  not  take  seriously  that  which 
they  see  on  the  stage  ;  yet,  this  side  of  the  question 
must  not  be  overlooked  when  we  consider  the  factors 
that  influence  the  general  tone  of  morality  in  France. 

It  is  a  matter  for  surprise  that  the  level  of  morality 
is  in  France  as  high  as  it  is  if  we  observe  that,  with 
literature  and  the  stage,  most  manifestations  of  the 
pictorial  arts  are  also  leagued.  Not  only  does  the 
French  artist  revel  in  the  nude,  but  he  indulges  in 
the  suggestive.  Authorities  may  differ  as  to  the 
advisability  of  representing  the  nude,  but  they  agree 
as  to  the  danger  of  accustoming  the  public  eye  to 
scenes  of  obvious  licence ;  whether  we  turn  to  the 
official  Salon,  to  private  exhibitions  or  to  the  illustrated 
papers  the  result  is  the  same :  modern  French  art 
seems  to  rely  as  much  upon  the  suggestive  as  upon  the 
beautiful.  Modern  art  being  somewhat  morbid  and 
decadent  in  France,  the  effort  to  be  singular  and  novel, 
which  we  detect  in  books,  leads  the  painter  to  go  as  far 
as  lax  police  regulations  will  allow,  so  as  to  attract  the 
attention  of  the  public.  The  craving  for  originality 
that  is  so  apparent  in  the  modern  Frenchman  is 
nowhere  more  continuously  manifested  than  in  the 
arts  ;  musicians  attempt  to  out-Wagner  Wagner,  and 
painters  perpetually  keep  in  mind  the  success  of  the 
secret  Rembrandts.  This  they  can  best  gain  by  aim- 
ing at  the  suggestive,  and  they  do  not  hesitate  to 
do  so. 

The  illustrated  paper  is,  however,  the  most  pestilent 
form  of  this  particular  incitement.  Pictures  are  not 
seen  by  the  million  and  they  are  usually  redeemed,  at 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

least  in  part,  by  their  technique ;  such  is  not  the  case 
with  illustrated  papers  which  enjoy  a  large  circulation. 
Some  of  these  publications  thrive  upon  nothing  but 
stories  and  illustrations  which  would  ensure  their  being 
at  once  confiscated  by  our  postal  authorities,  while 
many  more  would  barely  escape  the  same  fate.  Most 
papers,  moreover,  devote  a  portion  of  their  space, 
either  to  short  stories  of  doubtful  tone  or  to  serials  of 
a  similar  nature.  Not  only  are  these  stories  and 
illustrations  utterly  crude  and  coarse,  but  they  usually 
proclaim  that  no  laws  and  no  persons  are  worthy  of 
respect.  Not  only  are  there,  in  their  opinion,  no  pro- 
prieties, but  there  are  no  improprieties  ;  they  preach 
emancipation  from  the  social  code  by  glorifying  those 
who  flout  it,  and  describing  with  a  wealth  of  detail  the 
pleasures  that  the  rebel  may  enjoy. 

Thus  it  may  be  seen  that  the  Frenchman  is  exposed 
to  a  perpetual  assault  upon  his  moral  sense.  His  read- 
ing is  corrupt,  and  his  art  open  to  suspicion  ;  all  the 
influences  at  work  are  against  rigidity  of  morals.  Is  it 
wonderful  that  many  succumb  and  that  standards 
should  be  lower  than  in  Great  Britain,  where  vigilant 
censorship  is  exercised  by  a  small  but  energetic  party  ? 
Yet,  in  spite  of  these  handicaps,  and  for  reasons  already 
stated,  the  moral  attitude  in  the  family  is  not  open  to 
reproach.  Based  rather  on  logic  than  on  ethical  feeling, 
it  enables  the  man  who  has  sown  a  large  crop  of  wild 
oats  to  settle  into  almost  rigid  respectability  and  to 
exercise  the  many  homely  virtues  he  may  have  flouted 
in  his  younger  days. 


364 


CHAPTER   XVIII 

CONCLUSION 

AS  has  been  said  many  times  already  in  the  course 
jLx.  of  these  chapters,  the  French  character  is  in  this 
country  often  misunderstood,  in  great  part  owing  to  its 
elusiyeness  and  its  variety.  It  is  indeed  a  complex 
thing  and,  although  it  has  already  been  considered  from 
many  points  of  view  and  certain  characteristics  have 
been  developed  in  detail,  it  may  not  be  superfluous  to 
emphasise  some  of  these  ;  thus  we  shall  glean  from  them 
a  more  general  impression — by  means  of  which  a  few 
more  facts  will  be  brought  out  which  may  be  of  value 
in  view  of  the  false  impressions  that  many  Englishmen 
have  formed  on  the  subject. 

It  appears  somewhat  difficult  to  class  characteristics 
unless  we  divide  them  into  moral  and  intellectual  ; 
even  then  the  classification  may  be  disputed,  but, 
as  that  is  only  a  matter  of  definition,  we  need  not  pur- 
sue the  subject.  Of  the  first  category  arc  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  French  as  regards  thrift,  discipline,  domestic 
feeling,  optimism  and  home  lifej  m  the  second  we 
may  place  the  qualities  or  defects  of  logic,  frivolity 
and  quixotism  which  are  more  or  less  developed  in  the 
race.  This  is  a  rough  division,  but  it  will  suffice  for  our 
purpose. 

As  regards  thrift,  the  French  are  probably  the  most 

36s 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
economical  race  in  the  world,  for  they  obtain  a  maximum 
of  comfort  at  a  minimum  of  cost,  which  is  the  true 
form  of  economy,  as  opposed  to  purposeless  self-denial. 
But  we  cannot  lay  too  much  stress  upon  the  excesses 
to  which  thrift  has  driven  the  race ;  it  has  hardened  the 
people  and  often  deprived  them  of  human  feeling,  the 
peasantry  being  particularly  open  to  this  accusation. 
The  picture  drawn  by  Zola  in  La  Terre  may  be 
somewhat  highly  coloured  but,  in  the  main,  it  is 
true ;  residence  among  the  peasantry  of  the  villages 
Zola  describes  has  convinced  me  of  the  truth  of  the 
terrible  picture  of  avarice  and  ruthlessness  that 
he  so  pitilessly  paints.  Those  virtues  that  make  for 
strength  are  rarely  amiable,  and  thrift  is  one  of 
them  ;  the  secret  of  the  power  of  France  lies  in  the 
indomitable  economy  of  her  people,  for  it  is  inborn 
and  survives  the  worst  crises.  Such  catastrophes 
as  the  Panama  scandals  left  in  their  train  ruin  beyond 
calculation  and  yet,  within  a  year,  the  savings  of  the 
country  had  reconstituted  capital,  restored  the  equi- 
librium of  the  money  market  and  the  quotations  of 
stocks.  Whereas  Great  Britain  has  but  just  recovered 
from  the  depression  following  on  the  South  African 
War,  a  comparatively  cheap  contest  which  did  not 
entail  the  destruction  of  a  single  English  home,  France, 
within  four  years  of  1870,  had  regained  her  position 
after  paying  an  indemnity  nearly  equal  to  our  total 
Transvaal  expenditure  and  enduring  six  months'  de- 
vastation of  her  soil.  These  are  remarkable  facts,  and 
are  explained  only  by  the  continual  exercise  of  frugality 
combined  with  an  inexhaustible  capacity  for  labour. 

The  foregoing  has  already  been  fully  considered,  so 
let  us  turn  to  a  peculiarity  which  is    not  exclusively 

366 


Conclusion 

French  but  which  is  certainly  not  British — the  facility 
with  which  the  French  adjust  themselves  to  discipline. 
France  never  brags  of  being  a  "  free  country,"  though 
she  enjoys  a  very  full  measure  of  liberty ;  she  tolerates 
obvious  trammels  at  which  we  should  rail,  half-conscious 
of  the  fact  that  she  is  free  from  the  more  subtle  bonds  in 
which  the  British  people  are  confined.  Discipline  in 
France  makes  itself  felt  everywhere,  and  is  accepted  by 
the  people,  who  are  willing  to  submit  to  restrictions  ; 
the  word  "  prohibited  "  does  not  arouse  their  anger, 
probably  because  they  are  controlled  by  other  men  from 
their  childhood  upwards.  Discipline  begins  in  the 
family,  tender  as  parents  may  be,  and  is  never  divorced 
from  it  in  after  life.  Custom  and  the  law,  concerned  as 
they  are  with  the  preservation  of  the  family  as  a  unit, 
provide  safeguards  of  every  description  against  its  dis- 
ruption. The  most  notable  are  connected  with  the 
right  to  marry  ;  in  Great  Britain  the  legislator's  point  of 
view  is  that  the  individual  must  be  spared,  and  provides 
for  the  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  bond  by  recognis- 
ing it  under  circumstances  which  would  at  once  vitiate 
it  in  the  eyes  of  the  French  law-maker;  with  us  fraud,  mis- 
stated age,  assumed  names,  do  not  stand  in  the  way  if  it  be 
proved  that  marriage  was  intended.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  the  individual  this  is  absolutely  sound,  as  it  saves 
him  from  the  consequences  of  rashness  or  dishonesty  ; 
the  French  law  does  not  take  this  view  and  considers 
that  the  interests  of  the  family  rank  above  those  of  its 
members.  The  law  hedges  in  marriage  with  precautions 
of  every  sort ;  it  allows  no  marriage  ceremony  to  be 
performed  without  the  production  of  documentary 
evidence  of  age  and  of  parental  consent ;  furthermore, 
as  regards  the  latter  requirement,  if  a  marriage  takes 

367 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

place  in  spite  of  paternal  opposition,  it  even  demands 
proof  that  parents  have  been  consulted,  and  their  refusal 
as  legally  obtained  as  might  have  been  their  consent. 

These  restrictions  may  appear  galling,  but  the  people 
rarely  rebel,  so  ingrained  is  the  idea  of  parental  authority. 
To  make  licence  impossible  is  not  to  destroy  liberty  ;  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights 
of  Man,  itself  the  basis  of  the  Constitution,  is  that  the 
exercise  of  liberty  shall  be  subject  to  its  injuring  no 
man  ;  this  has  passed  into  the  law  and  shows  how 
intimately  bound  up  with  the  customs  of  the  people  is 
the  regime  under  which  they  live. 

Restrictions  bearing  upon  marriage  are  paralleled  by 
those  which  limit  the  disposal  of  property.  It  may 
seem  monstrous  to  restrict  freedom  of  marriage,  even 
for  the  ultimate  good  of  the  people,  but  it  may  strike 
the  reader  as  even  harder  that  the  Frenchman  may  not 
dispose  of  his  property  after  his  death  without  re- 
striction or  hindrance.  In  this  country,  save  the  un- 
usual case  of  entail,  a  man  may  dispose  of  his  property 
as  he  may  think  fit,  create  inequalities  in  the  disposal 
of  it,  or  even  disinherit  his  children.  That  is  a  satisfy- 
ing arrangement  enough  for  the  individual,  but  it  does 
not  make  for  solidity  and  the  solidarity  of  the  home. 
The  French  legislator  considers  that  inheritance  is 
normal  and  that  no  man  may  modify  its  incidence 
beyond  a  certain  point.  The  practical  outcome  of  this 
attitude  is  that  a  "  reserve  "  is  established  which  no  man 
may  touch ;  if  he  have  one  child  he  may  dispose  of  only 
half  his  property,  the  other  half  being  irrevocably  the 
child's  ;  if  he  have  two  children  he  may  dispose  of  only 
one-third  and,  if  he  have  three  or  more,  of  but  one- 
quarter    of  his   estate.     It    is    possible,   of  course,  to 

368 


Conclusion 

frustrate  the  law  by  subterfuge,  but,  should  this  be 
done,  legal  means  are  often  available  to  regularise  the 
situation. 

The  position  of  the  child  is  a  strong  one,  as  is  but 
fair  in  view  of  the  extent  of  parental  authority ;  the 
law  does  not  allow  a  man  to  exercise  unlimited  arbi- 
trariness, not  because  it  sympathises  with  the  child,  but 
because  it  considers  that  it  is  not  for  the  good  of  the 
family  to  allow  its  possessions  to  be  scattered  or  ill 
distributed.  This  restriction  of  liberty  is  curious,  but 
any  who  are  acquainted  with  the  whims  of  will-makers 
will  agree  that  it  is  worthy  of  consideration. 

Apart  from  inheritance,  even  during  his  lifetime,  a 
man  may  not  dispose  of  his  property  in  a  rash  manner. 
In  this  country,  there  are  no  means  of  restraining  the 
spendthrift,  of  preventing  him  from  dissipating  in  a  few 
years  the  family  savings  of  half  a  century.  It  may  be 
argued  that  he  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  his  property  as 
he  may  think  fit ;  it  can  also  be  argued  that  it  is  not  his 
property  but  a  trust,  and  that  he  has  no  right  to  waste 
the  substance  of  the  family.  For  the  purpose  of  coping 
with  this  danger,  French  law  has  instituted  the  system 
of  the  Conseil  Judiciaire.  This  enables  the  family  to 
control  the  expenditure  of  a  member  by  constituting 
itself  into  a  council  and  applying  to  the  Courts  for  the 
nomination  of  an  official  trustee  who  will  take  over 
from  the  spendthrift  his  misused  spending  powers. 
There  is  but  little  danger  that  the  family  will  make 
arbitrary  use  of  its  privilege,  for  it  can  do  nothing 
without  the  sanction  of  the  Courts  and  the  trustee  is 
always  an  outsider.  The  Conseil  Judiciaire  keeps  the 
spendthrift  in  check  and  saves  him  from  inevitable 
bankruptcy  :  that  is  not  the  main  object  of  the  legis- 

2  B  369 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

lator :  again  his  sole  aim  is  to  safeguard  the  patrimony 
of  the  family  even  at  the  cost  of  individual  liberty. 

All  this  tends  to  show  how  readily  the  French  accept 
restrictions,  healthy  but  galling,  partly  because  their 
"  clannishness  "  is  highly  developed  and  partly  because 
of  the  discipline  to  which  they  are  subjected.  The 
question  of  the  treatment  of  girls  has  been  considered 
in  another  chapter ;  the  boys  are  dealt  with  on  different 
lines.  For  them  is  the  rough  discipline  of  school, 
where  traces  of  militarism  are  always  seen,  followed  by 
the  harsher  training  of  the  regiment.  Armies  do  not 
vary  essentially  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  describe  the 
regime,  though  I  know  it  by  personal  experience  to  be 
both  thorough  and  hard  ;  the  essential  point  is  that 
every  Frenchman  is  compelled  to  subject  himself  at  an 
early  age  to  the  authority  of  many  masters  and  that  he 
is  taught  to  obey,  perhaps  the  only  good  that  he  can 
derive  from  conscription.  As  a  result  we  find  the 
Frenchman  far  more  ready  in  after  life  to  accept 
authority,  when  he  knows  it  to  be  intelligently  exer- 
cised, and  less  likely  to  delude  himself  with  fine  phrases 
revolving  round  the  word  "  Freedom." 

He  submits  as  readily  to  irksome  laws  as  to  stringent 
paternal  authority,  because  he  knows  that  public  order 
must  be  maintained.  The  administrative  machine, 
which  the  country  has  inherited  from  the  First  Empire, 
has  accustomed  citizens  to  authority,  and  they  bend 
willingly  before  its  bureaucratic  rule.  Thus  they  sub- 
mit to  restrictions  on  the  right  of  meeting  which  were 
not  contemplated  in  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of 
Man.  The  open-air  assemblies  in  this  country  are  ever 
a  subject  for  astonishment  to  the  French ;  the  Hyde 
Park  orator  would  not  for  a  moment  be  tolerated  and 

370 


Conclusion 

Trafalgar  Square  demonstrations  would  immediately  be 
suppressed.  Even  marches  through  the  city  streets  are 
discouraged  and  impeded  :  the  French  law  does  not 
recognise  the  right  of  the  people  to  discuss  their  affairs 
in  the  open  air.  It  also  assumes  the  right  to  use  the 
search  warrant  on  suspicion,  a  thing  utterly  alien  to  a 
people  who  hold  the  view  that  a  man's  house  is  his 
castle  ;  this  is  a  survival  of  past  absolutism  and  its  re- 
tention is  probably  justified  by  the  changes  that 
have  taken  place  in  political  regimes.  The  time  will 
come,  in  a  few  decades,  when  the  Republic  will 
have  been  so  long  established  that  it  will  be  possible 
to  allow  the  people  a  liberty  which  they  will  not 
misuse. 

We  must  not  conclude  from  all  this  that  the  French 
are  slaves  both  at  home  and  abroad,  for  nothing  is  less 
true.  The  regime  is  liberal,  but  it  perpetually  keeps  in 
mind  the  fact  that  freedom  is  not  the  right  to  do  what 
you  please,  but  the  right  to  do  what  you  please  provided 
you  injure  no  man.  In  this  country  we  have  often 
turned  liberty  into  licence,  the  most  perfect  contrast  to 
ourselves  being  not  France  but  Germany ;  as  a  result 
our  social  conditions,  the  status  of  labour,  housing  etc., 
are  considerably  below  the  standards  of  races  that  are 
not  less  liberty  loving,  but  willing  to  limit  the  exercise 
of  a  privilege  which  may  injure  the  community  and 
weaken  the  State. 

Discipline  does  not  seem  harsh  in  France,  so  accus- 
tomed are  the  people  to  restrictions,  of  the  existence 
of  which  they  are  actually  oblivious  ;  they  do  not  wish 
to  break  away  and  willingly  live  ordered  and  sober 
lives.  As  a  race  they  are  sedate,  particularly  the 
ubiquitous  bourgeois  element.     There  is  an  impression 

371 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

abroad  that  the  French  are  superficial  and  frivolous ; 
that  is  untrue,  but  this  false  impression  is  accounted  for 
when  we  consider  how  naturally  cheerful  they  are. 
Apart  from  some  of  the  younger  Intellectuels  whom 
despair  of  ever  righting  social  evils  has  driven  into 
pessimism,  the  French  are  kindly  and  gay  under  circum- 
stances that  would  have  tried  Mark  Tapley.  They  have 
an  extraordinary  facility  for  placing  themselves  beyond 
the  reach  of  everyday  annoyance  and  for  living  for  the 
day,  "living"  in  the  fullest  sense.  Thus  the  crowded 
streets  in  French  cities,  the  immense  gatherings  of 
merrymakers  in  places  of  amusement,  lead  the  casual 
observer  to  believe  that  the  race  has  elevated  the  pur- 
suit of  pleasure  to  an  exclusive  occupation. 

The  most  prevalent  misconception  is  the  idea  that 
there  is  no  home  life  in  France ;  it  has  been  quite 
seriously  suggested  to  me  that  the  cafi  and  the  res- 
taurant see  more  of  the  average  Frenchman  than  does 
his  home.  One  might  as  well  argue  that  the  English- 
man of  the  lower  classes  lives  in  the  public  house  be- 
cause the  latter  is  always  full.  The  truth  of  the  matter 
is  that,  though  French  cafes  are  altogether  cleaner  and 
pleasanter  places  than  their  equivalent  (if  there  be  one) 
in  Great  Britain,  the  French  do  not  haunt  them  to  the 
extent  of  indulging  in  intemperance.  There  are  no 
parks  to  speak  of  in  French  cities,  so  that  the  citizen 
and  his  family  naturally  resort  to  open-air  cafis;  the 
result  upon  their  health  is  comparable  with  the  effects 
of  open  spaces,  and  the  inborn  frugality  of  the  race 
sternly  limits  their  expenditure  on  stimulants ;  indeed 
more  non-intoxicants  are  sold  than  alcoholic  drinks : 
the  French  have  no  great  liking  for  the  latter  and  con- 
sider drunkenness  as  the  worst  of  all  vices.     We  are 

372 


Conclusion 

inclined  to  look  upon  it  with  indulgence,  but  the  French 
view  it  with  horror  ;  in  other  directions  their  standards 
are  lower,  but  for  the  drunkard  they  make  no  allow- 
ances. So  stringent  are  their  views  on  the  subject  that 
the  law  provides  exemplary  penalties  for  the  chronic 
drunkard  ;  after  a  certain  number  of  convictions  he  is 
debarred  from  serving  as  a  juror  and  from  being  elected 
to  any  public  office ;  he  may  even  be  disfranchised,  an 
extreme  form  of  punishment  in  a  country  where  man- 
hood suffrage  is  a  sacred  principle  of  government. 

Restaurant  dining  can  be  dismissed  more  summarily. 
Not  only  does  the  bourgeois  enjoy  his  home,  but  he 
strongly  objects  to  the  expenditure  entailed  by  dining 
out ;  the  impression  that  restaurant  dining  is  a  feature 
of  French  life  is  amusing,  and  I  cannot  say  too  often 
that  no  comparison  can  be  instituted  between  the 
steady  and  rather  dull  French  bourgeois  and  our  plea- 
sure-loving middle  class.  Indeed,  if  we  compare  the 
citizens  of  Paris  and  of  London,  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
the  latter  indulge  far  more,  in  proportion,  in  dining 
away  from  home.  I  do  not  contend  that  home  life  is 
decaying  in  this  country,  but  it  must  not  be  set  up  as 
immeasurably  more  complete  than  in  France,  for  it  is 
not  impossible  that  the  contrary  is  actually  the  case. 

Apart  from  moral  tendencies  and  national  customs, 
the  French  race  has  intellectual  peculiarities  that  are 
well  worth  noting.  Some  are  unknown  to  us,  some 
unrecognised  and  many  misunderstood.  This  cannot 
be  said  of  the  quality  of  logic,  with  which  the  French 
are  usually  credited  in  this  country  ;  I  do  not  know 
the  origin  of  our  impression,  but  I  cannot  say  that 
experience  confirms  it.  The  French  are  no  more 
logical  or  illogical  than  we  are  ;  they  number  hard- 

373 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 
headed  business  men  and  intelligent  diplomats,  but 
other  races  are  not  without  such  men.  As  regards  the 
race,  I  should  feel  more  inclined  to  say  that  it  is  not 
logical,  in  the  philosophical  sense  ;  the  French  are  im- 
pulsive, a  natural  result  of  hotheadedness,  and  often 
forget  the  rule  in  the  application.  The  impression 
may  have  arisen  from  the  quality  of  their  literature, 
which  is  usually  clear  and  well  knit,  but  that  is  not  a 
matter  of  logic,  but  of  clarity  and  terseness.  It  is  in  this 
direction  that  the  French  race  and  the  French  language 
shine;  it  is  true  that,  in  many  cases,  the  British  ex- 
press their  thoughts  in  fewer  words,  particularly  by 
means  of  Saxon  sayings  which  owe  their  origin  to  a 
restricted  vocabulary,  but  they  do  not  infuse  into  their 
speech  the  colour  that  abounds  in  French.  Such  ex- 
pressions as  lefeu  sacj'e,  to  express  by  "  sacred  fire  "  an 
uncontrollable  bent, /aire  balk,  to  give  by  comparison 
with  a  bullet  the  impression  of  the  crushing  effect  of 
a  word  or  a  deed,  are  interesting  and  shed  some  light 
on  the  national  outlook  ;  it  would  be  easy  to  make  out 
a  list  of  sayings  graceful  or  pungent,  sweeping  or  pre- 
cise, but  I  must  resist  the  temptation  and  quote  only 
one,  V esprit  de  Vescalier,  "  the  wit  of  the  stairs,"  because, 
in  its  suggestion  of  the  good  thing  that  might  have 
been  said  and  is  thought  of  too  late,  we  find  con- 
centrated the  graces  of  irony  and  elegance  that  have 
placed  French  literature  on  so  high  a  pinnacle. 

A  graceful  language  may  proceed  from  a  vigorous 
people ;  yet  the  impression  has  been  created  that  the 
French  are  as  airy  as  their  phrases.  So  much  has 
been  said  elsewhere,  directly  and  indirectly,  on  the 
subject  that  it  appears  unnecessary  to  return  to  it ;  it 
is   enough   to  ask   the   reader  to  decide  whether   this 

374 


Conclusion 

solid  and  earnest  people,  who  love  liberty  so  well,  show 
any  signs  of  lightness  except  in  externals.  How, 
indeed,  the  charge  of  frivolity  can  be  sustained  by 
those  who  admit  that  the  French  are  quixotic  is  re- 
markable. Quixotic  they  most  assuredly  are  and,  in 
the  whole  course  of  their  history,  they  have  wasted  no 
opportunity  of  demonstrating  the  fact.  They  are  a 
sentimental  people,  though  they  may  not  in  this 
respect  compare  with  the  British  and  the  Germans, 
but,  above  all,  their  passion  for  liberty  has  ever  enlisted 
them  on  the  side  of  the  oppressed.  Indeed,  they  have 
been  practically  the  only  rivals  of  Great  Britain  in  the 
work  of  civilisation  and  in  that  of  protecting  the  weak. 
The  two  great  nations  of  the  West  stand  out  proudly 
from  among  the  bandit  European  states,  concerned 
ever  with  their  own  interests,  ruthless,  pitiless. 

The  sympathy  of  France  has  often  been  given  to  the 
same  objects  as  has  that  of  Great  Britain,  for  both 
gloried  in  citizens  fighting  for  the  oppressed  Greek,  for 
the  oppressed  Italian ;  the  two  nations  have  joined 
hands  to  protect  Morocco  and  have  placed  themselves  at 
the  head  of  those  who  demand  freedom  for  Macedonia  and 
mercy  for  the  Congo.  Therefore,  let  it  be  understood 
that  it  is  in  no  spirit  of  carping  criticism  that  I  prefer 
the  claim  of  France  to  a  share  in  the  great  enterprises 
of  this  world  that  could  yield  no  profit,  but  only  glory. 
The  French,  like  the  British,  have  always  supported  the 
weak  against  the  strong,  and  in  that  fact  we  find  the  true 
bond  of  union  between  the  two  peoples. 

It  may  seem  a  contradiction,  but  the  quixotic  French 
race  does  not  contain  many  Don  Quixotes.  Solid  and 
rather  dull,  thrifty  and  somewhat  avaricious,  the  French- 
man, in  every-day  life,  sinks  his  sentiment  and  transforms 

375 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 

the  potential  Knight  de  la  Mancha  into  a  respectable  San- 
cho.  His  capacity  and  liking  for  hard  work  arealike  amaz- 
ing and  extend  to  every  walk  of  life.  From  childhood 
upwards  he  is  overworked,  and  thrives  under  the  burden  ; 
we  have  already  seen  that  long  hours  and  short  holidays 
are  willingly  accepted  by  the  people  for  their  children. 
As  a  natural  result,  the  nation  being  educated  in  hard 
work,  faces  with  equanimity  the  prospect  of  long  hours 
in  after  life.  The  British  workman  at  his  best  is  clearly 
superior  to  the  Frenchman,  whose  output  he  easily 
exceeds  whilst  maintaining  a  higher  average  of  quality ; 
for  that  reason  first-class  British  artisans  are  imported 
in  numbers.  The  ordinary  type  of  labourer  is,  however, 
more  efficient  in  France ;  his  output  is  larger,  and  his 
wage  lower.  The  natural  capacity  of  the  French  for 
hard  work  has  been  trained  to  such  a  pitch  that  they 
look  upon  it  as  normal  and  acceptable. 

The  law  fixes  g^  hours  ^  as  the  legal  working  day 
in  factories,  a  high  limit  when  we  remember  how  strong 
is  in  France  the  Socialist  party.  Moreover,  the  average 
is  counted  over  six  days,  for  the  half-day  has  not  yet 
entered  into  national  customs.  Indeed,  up  to  four  or 
five  years  ago,  no  child  had  more  than  one  half-holiday 
in  every  week,  nor  could  most  workers  hope  for  as  much 
as  one  a  month.  The  six-day  week  was  the  rule,  and 
the  seven-day  week  frequent ;  workmen,  employees,  and 
shopkeepers  averaged  6|  days'  work  per  week.  Of  late 
years,  hours  have  decreased  ;  banks  and  the  leading 
stores  have  to  a  small  extent  introduced  early  closing, 
and  the  Sunday  Rest  Law  is  being  put  into  practice. 
Yet  the  average  remains  higrh,  and   I  do  not  think  it 


*ti**) 


^  This  will  be  reduced  to  9  hours  at  the  end  of  the  current  year,  to 
I  in  1910,  and  to  8  hours  in  191?. 

376 


Conclusion 

rash  to  assert  that  a  full  six-day  week  is  still  the  French 
average.  The  week-end  is  practically  unknown  even  to 
the  wealthier  business  men,  whose  apparent  ideal  is 
to  come  to  their  office  early  and  to  leave  it  late.  I  need 
not  enlarge  upon  this  subject,  for  it  forms  every  yearly 
the  subject  of  correspondence  in  the  newspapers  during 
the  summer  months ;  it  is  enough  to  indicate  that  the  ^  V 
French  custom  differs  from  ours  in  this  as  in  many 
other  respects. 

Here  must  end  this  survey  of  French  customs, 
manners,  and  institutions.  The  completion  of  the  task 
reveals  the  sad  fact  that,  although  much  has  been  said, 
yet  far  more  has  been  left  unnoticed,  and  that  the  work 
of  discrimination  has  resulted  in  the  omission  of  much 
interesting  matter.  Such  information  is,  however, 
easily  found  in  other  books,  whereas  my  aim  has 
been  rather  to  correct  false  impressions  and  to  give  a 
true  picture,  if  a  rough  one,  of  the  j.ctual  state  of  things 
in  France. 


377 


INDEX 


Agitators,  20 

—  and  revolution,  20 
Agriculture,    see   Peasant   proprie- 
tors 

—  234 

Allemane,  171 
Algeria,  205,  215 

America,    see    United    States    of 

America 
Anarchism,  and  the  Declaration  of 

the  Rights  of  Man,  53 
Anarchy  in  Poland,  60 
Anti-militarism,      see      Socialism, 

Nationalists 
Aristocracy,  see  Nobility,  Titles 
Army,  80  footnote,  230 
Art  under  the  Republic,  104,  105, 

106,  107,  227 

—  and  Morality,  363 
Athletics,  see  Education 

—  286 

Austria,  Napoleon  III  and,  34 

B 

Barker,  Granville,  293 
Beerbohm,  Max,  291 
Besan9on,  Archbishop  of,  147 
Bietry,  P.,  189,  191 
Birthrate,  243  seq. 

—  among  the  poor,  258 


Birthrate  and  immigration,  254 

—  and  the  German  peril,  259 

—  and  the  deathrate,  251  seq. 

—  causes  of  low,  255,  257,  328 

—  statistics  of,  250,  253 
of  population,  249,  254 

—  still  births,  250 

—  variations,  251  seq. 
Bishop  of  London,  256 
Bismarck,  35 

Bloc,  see  Republican  Bloc 
Bonaparte,  see  Napoleon  I 
Bonapartists,    see    Clericals,    Re- 
action, Nationalists 

—  25 

—  power  of,  112,  115,  116, 117  118, 
119 

Bourses  du  Travail,  1 88 
Briand,  A.,  150 
Brieux,  297,  299 

British  Constitution,  see  Constitu- 
tion 

clumsiness  of,  57 

unwritten,  59 

Browne,  Sir  James  Crichton,  255 


Carlyle,  28 

Cassagnac,  P.  de,  138 
Catholic  Church,  see  Church 
Centre,  120 


379 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 


Chamber  of  Deputies  and  finance 

bills,  86,  87,  88 

and  the  Colonies,  92 

dissolution  of,  72 

established,  71 

powers  of,  76 

eligibility  of  members,  80 

franchise,  83,  84,  85,  86 

immunity  of  members,  78 

payment  of  members,  81,  82 

polls  of  the  various  parties, 

lis,  116,  117,  118,  119 

second  ballot,  80,  81 

Chamberlain,  J.,  19 
Charles  X,  31,  32,  54,  135 
Christian  Socialists,  142,  167 
Church  and  Modernism,  129,  130, 

131.  132,  133 

—  and  Socialism,  140,  141,  142, 
143,  144,  167,  168,  169 

—  and  women,  127 

—  and  the  Mgr.  Lacroix  case,  132 

—  and  the  1906  Conclave.  147 

—  and  the  State,  64,  123  seq. 

—  Concordat,  148 

—  decadence  of,  126,  127,  128 

—  estabhshment  of,  67,  68 

—  history  of  contlict,  147 

—  in  politics,  134  scq. 

—  influence  of  Dreyfus  case,  137, 
138 

—  popular  feeling  towards,  123, 
124,  125,  126,  127,  128,  139 

—  religious  orders,  136 

—  simony,  129 

Clemenceau,  119,  150 

Clericals,  see  Nationalists,  Royal- 
ists, Reactionaries,  Church, 
Modernism 

Clubs,  324 


Coalition  governments,  97 

Code  Napoleon,  57,  footnote  to  71  ; 

see  Conclusion 
Colonies,  213  seq. 

—  causes   of  failure   of,    216  seq., 
259 

—  deficits  of,  215,  216,  221 

—  government  of,  93,  213 

—  population  of,  220 

—  the  birthrate  and  the,  259 

—  trade  of,  205,  214 
Combes,  118,  139,  148 
Combination,  22  ;  see  Trade  Union- 
ism, Co-operation,  Socialism 

Commerce,  see  Trade 
Communes,  74 

Compulsory   powers,   the  Declara- 
tion of  the  Rights  of  Man  and, 

49 
Concordat,  148 
Constitution,   British,    see    British 

Constitution 
Conseil  d'Arrondissement,  74 

—  General,  74 

elections  in  1907,  119 

—  Judiciaire,  369 

—  Municipal,  74 
Constitution,    French,  45   seq.,   57 

seq.,  69 

—  —  evolution  of,  62 

practical  working  of,  79  •f^i'* 

text  of,  71 

under  Louis  XVIII,  67 

written,  59 

—  of  1791,  63 

—  of  1793,  65 

—  of  1848,  68 
Conservatives,    see    Reactionaries, 

Nationalists,  Royalists 

—  objects  of,  121 


380 


Index 


Consulat,  31 
Co-operation,  193  seq. 

—  in  building,  197 

—  productive,  197 

—  progress  of,  195,  196,  197,  198 
Cost  of  living,  212 

Couthon,  30 

Crichton  Browne,  Sir  Jas.,  255 

Cromwell,  36 

Customs,  see  Trade 

D 

Danton,  30 

Deathrate,  see  Birthrate 

Declaration  des  Droits  de  V Homme 

et  du  Citoyen,  44  seq. 
Declaration       of       Independence, 

American,  50 

—  of  the  Rights  of  Man,  44  seq. 

accepted  by  Louis  XVI, 

54 
influence  of  the,  54 

Delcasse,  118 

Democracy,  25,  31 

Deputies,  see  Chamber  of 

Deroulede,  Paul,  92,  139 

Diaz,  Napoleon  III  and,  34 

Dictature,  23 

Directoire,  31,  67 

Discipline,  367 

Disestabhshment,  see  Church 

Domestic  servants,  311 

Dots,  see  Marriage 

Dowries,  see  Marriage 

Drama,  the..  289  seq. 

—  the,  and  morality,  361 

—  the,    censorship    of,    294,    299, 
301 

—  the,  influence  of,  290  seg.,  298, 
300,  303,  304 


Drama,  the  moral,  299 

—  the  political,  294 

—  the  social,  297 

—  the.  Socialism  and,  300 
Dreyfus  case,  120 

influence  of,  137 

Drumont,  Edouard,  138 
Drunkenness,  373 

—  see  Women 
Du  Maurier,  10 
Dumping,  212 
Duties,  see  Trade 

E 

Economy,  see  Thrift 
Education,  26,  264  seq. 

—  and  class  feeling,  112,  266,  267 

—  and  memory  training,  278 

—  and  modern  languages,  279 

—  and  school  individuality,  265 

—  athletic,  286,  287 

—  classical,  277,  281 

—  cost  of,  269 

—  elementary,  267,  268 

—  historical,  280 

—  home,  284,  316,  317 

—  methods  of,  270,  275,  276 

—  regime  of,  285,  286,  287 

—  scientific,  278 

—  secondary  and  higher,  269,  270, 
271,  275 

—  State-controlled,  68,  265 

—  University,  271,  272,  273,  274 
Elections,  see  Franchise,  Chamber 

of  Deputies,  Senate 
Emigration,  see  Colonies 
England,  see  Great  Britain,  British 
Equality,  46 
Erckman-Chatrian,  34 


381 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 


Family,  see  Birthrate,  Marriage 

—  size  of,  257 

Farming,  see  Peasant  proprietors 

Feudalism,  39 

Forests,  176 

France,  Anatole,  171 

Franchise  in  France,  83,  84,  85,  86 

—  in  Great  Britain,  61,  84,  85,  86 
Free  Trade,  see  Protection 
Freedom,  see  Liberty 
Freemasons,  169 

French  Constitution,  see  Constitu- 
tion 
Friendly  Societies,  22 


Gambling,  312 
Games,  see  Athletics 
German  peril,  230 

and  the  birthrate,  259 

Gohier,  Urbain,  171 
Gold,  see  Wealth 
Great  Britain,  revolution,  36 
Grein,  J.  T.,  291 
Guesde,  171 

H 

Habeas  Corpus,  48,  52 

Habert,  Marcel,  139 

Heron,  David,  255 

Herve,  171  ;  see  also  Socialism 

Higher  Criticism,  see  Modernism 

Home  life,  372  ;  see  also  Marriage 

Housing,  181,  182 


I 


Illegitimacy,  354>  355 
Immigration,  254 


Imperialists,  see  Bonapartists 
Index     expurgatorius,     130,     131, 

133 
Ingram,  Dr.  W.,  256 
Inheritance,  368 
Insularity,  5  seq.,  235 
Insurrection  as  a  right,  66 
Intellectuels,  160,  161,  162 

J 

Jaille,  Admiral  de  la,  191 
Jaures,  171 
Jeannerod,  191 
Jews,  126 

—  Associations  Law  and  the,  146 

—  Socialism  and  the,  161,  162 
Jones,  C.  S.,  176 

K 

Kerohan,  de,  138 


Labour,  see  Trade  Unions,  Social- 
ism, Women 

—  exchanges,  188 

—  hours  of,  376 
Language,  238,  239,  240,  241 
La  Terreur,  29,  56 
Legitimists,  see  Royalists 
Leroy-Beaulieu,  Paul,  191 
Liberals,  116,  I2I 
Liberty,  20,  21,  27,  34,  46 

—  and  monarchy,  39 

—  and  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights 
of  Man,  44  seq. 

—  of  conscience,  48,  52,  64 

—  of  contract,  65 

—  of  the  Press,  48,  53 

—  personal,  367 


382 


Index 


Life  of  the  people,  Du  Maurier  on, 

10 

Sterne  on,  9 

Thackeray  on,  10 

Literature,  13,  27,  28 

—  and  morality,  359 

—  under  the  Republic,   104,   105, 
106,  107 

London,  Bishop  of,  256 
Louis  XIII,  29 

—  XIV,  29 

—  XV,  29 

—  XVI,  30,  54,  63,  65 
-XVIII,  31 

and  the  Charter,  67 

and  the  Church,  135 

—  Philippe,  32,  33,  55 
and  the  Church,  68 

M 

MacMahon,  94,  95 
Marat,  30 

Marie-Antoinette,  29,  30 
Marmande,  R.  de,  133 
Marriage,  326  seq. 

—  and  the  Frenchman,  331,  342, 

343.  344 

—  dowries,  332,  336,  337,  338 

—  mercenary,  328,  329,  332,  333, 

334,  335.  336 

—  nature  of,  327,  328,  329,   332, 
333.  334,  335,  336 

—  restrictions  on,  332,  367 
Maurier,  G,  du,  10 
Meline,  206 

Merry  del  Val,  Cardinal,  147 

Meyer,  A.,  138 

Mexican  war,  34 

Michelet,  229 

Militarists,  see  Nationalists 


Military  service,  see  Army 
Ministers,  72,  76,  77,  96,  97 
Mirabeau,  28 
Mirbeau,  Octave,  299 
Modernism,     129,    130,    131,    132, 

133 

Monarchy,  see  Reactionaries, 
Royalists,  Bonapartists 

—  39  ^^1-  >  99)  ^0° 

—  and  class  feeling,  40,  41,  42 

—  and  culture,  104,  105 
Monopolies,  174,  175,  176,  177 
Morality,  see  Marriage 

—  348  seq. 

—  and  illegitimacy,  354,  355 

—  and  literature,  359 

—  and  puritanism,  3S3,  354 

—  and  the  arts,  363 

—  and  the  drama,  361 

—  attitude  of  the  law,  357 

—  in  marriage,  348 

—  of  bachelors,  351 

N 

Napoleon  I,  23,  31 

and  the  Constitution,  67 

and  the   tobacco   monopoly, 

174 

—  Ill,  34,  68 

and  Great  Britain,  34,  205, 

208 

fall  of,  35 

Nationalists,  see  Clericals,  No- 
bility, Reactionaries,  Royalists, 
Socialism 

—  composition  of,  iii,  170 

—  power  of,  115,  116,  117,  118, 
119 

Navy,  231 
Nobility,  109 


3B: 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century 


Nobility,  power  of,  114 

—  standing  of,  no,  iii,  113 

O 

Obscurantism,  see  Church 
Orders,  see  Religious  Orders 
Orleanists,  see  Royalists 
Overcrowding,  259,  261,  262 


Parliament,   see   Chamber  of  De- 
puties, Senate 
Peasant  proprietors,  26,  156,  233 
Plebiscite,  see  Referendum 
Plural  voting,  83,  84 
Poland,  anarchy  in,  60 
Poor  Law,  65 
Population,  see  Birthrate 
Poverty  and  the  Birthrate,  258 
Premium  bonds,  312 
President  of  the  Republic,  94 

office  created,  71 

personality  of,  103 

powers  of,  71,  72,  75,  76, 

77,  93,  94,  95 
Pressense,  de,  171 
Prices,  212 
Privilege,  30 

—  suppressed,  64 

Progressive  Republicans,  power  of, 

118,  121 
Protection  and  its  fallacies,  206 

—  and  the  1892  tariff,  20S  scq. 
Protestants,  126 

—  and  the  Associations  Law,  146 

R 

Radical  Socialists,  164,  165 
Radicals,  power  of,  118,  121 


Railways,  State,  177 
Reactionaries,  25,  30,  99  seq. 

—  and  the  Dreyfus  case,  137,  138 

—  composition  of,  in 

—  Conseils      Generaux      elections 
(1907),  119 

—  Dtroulede  case,  92,  139 

—  power  of,   112,   n5,  n6,    n7, 
118,  119 

Referendum,  34,  66,  6"],  68 
Reform,  26 
Religious  feeling,  125 

—  Orders,  136,  144 

history  of  conflict,  147 

Republican  "Bloc,"  117,  118,  n9, 

120,  121 
Republicanism,   38  seq.,  lOO,  225  ; 

see  Reaction 

—  and  culture,  104,  105,  106 

—  and   Kingship,    lOi,    102,    103, 
104 

—  and  reaction  ;  see  Reactionaries 

—  and  Socialism,  52 

—  and  the  Church,  123  seq. 

—  and  the  French  character,  43,  44, 
100 

—  and  the  Liberals,  116 
Revolution,  17  seq. 

—  and  agitators,  20 

—  and  taxation,  30 

—  causes  of,  18,  25,  27,  29,  30,  32, 
33 

—  in  Great  Britain,  36 

—  recurrence  of,  24,  25 
-(1789),  28 

—  (1830),  31,  32,  68 
-(1848),  33,  68 

—  (1870),  24,  35,  55,68 
Revolutionary  spirit,  17  scq.,  35 
Right  to  work,  66 


384 


Index 


Rights  of  Man,  Declaration  of,  see 

Declaration 
Robespierre,  28,  30,  65,  66 
Roget,  General,  139 
Roman     Catholic      Church,      see 

Church 
Roty,  43 

Royal  families  banished,  73 
Royalists,  25 
—  power  of,    112,    115,   116,   117, 

118,  119 


Saint-Just,  30 
Schools,  see  Education 
Second  ballot,  80,  81 

—  chamber,  see  Senate 

Senate   and   finance  bills,   74,  86, 
87,  88 

—  Colonies  and  the,  92 

—  composition  of,  89,  190 

—  electors  to  the,  91 

—  establishment  of,  71,  73,  88 

—  general  powers  of,  76 

—  immunity  of  members,  78 

—  legal  powers  of,  75,  77,  92,  139 

—  payment  of  members,  81,  82 
Servants,  311 

Small   holdings,  see  Peasant  pro- 
prietors 
Sociahsm,  38,  152  seq. 

—  and  anti-socialism,  152 

—  and  the  agriculturists,  156,  157 

army,  169,  170,  171,  172,  173 

Church,  140,  141,  142,  143, 

144,  167,  168,  169 

Constitution  of  1793,  66 

Declaration  of  the  Rights  of 

Man,  52 
French  temperament,  \i^a,seq. 


Socialism  and  the  Intelkdueh,  160, 
161,  162 

Jews,  161,  162 

professions,  157,  158,  159 

trade  unions,  184,  185,  186 

yellow  unions,  189,  190,  191, 

192 

—  Christian,  142,  167 

—  power  of,    117,    118,   119,    163, 
164,  165 

—  State,  174,  175,  176,  177 
Sports,  see  Athletics 
Stage,  see  Drama 

Sterne,  Laurence,  9 
Strikes,  184 


Tariff  Reform,  see  Protection 
Tartarin  de  Tarascon,  8 
Taxation,  30,  212 

—  and    the    Declaration    of   the 
Rights  of  Man,  49 

Thackeray,  10 
Theatres,  see  Drama 
Thiers,  32 
Thrift,  see  Women,  Wealth 

—  26,  365 
Titles,  109 

Tobacco  monopoly,  175 
Town  life,  13 
Trade,  200  seq. 

—  free  trade,  206,  208  seq. 

—  imports  and  exports,  202  seq. 

—  with  the  Colonies,  205,  214 

—  with  Great  Britain,  204 
Trade  Unions,  22,  179  seq. 

and  Socialism,  184,  185,  186 

and  strikes,  184 

labour  exchanges,  188 

power  of,  187,  188 


385 


France  in  the  Twentieth  Century- 


Trade   Unions,   yellow,  189,  190, 

191,  192 
Tree,  Beerbohm,  293 

U 

Unemployment,  261 
Union  Co-operative,  195 
United  States  of  America,  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  50 
Universities,  see  Education 
Upper  House,  see  Senate 
Urban  life,  see  Town  life 


Vaillant,  171 
Vedrenne,  293 
Vogiie,  Count  de,  191 
Voting,  see  Franchise,  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  Senate 

W 
Waldeck-Rousseau,  118,  120,  139 


Wealth,  232,  233,  234,  236 

—  and  gambling,  312 
Webb,  Sidney,  255 
Weill,  Dr.  A.,  322 
Women,  see  Marriage 

—  182,  305  seq. 

—  and  drink,  308 

—  and  politics,  305,  306 

—  freedom  of,  329,  330,  331 

—  French,  as  educators,  316,  317 
as   mothers,   315,   316,  317, 

318,  319,  320 

as  wives,  310,  311,  312,  313, 

314 
morality  of,  308,  339,  340  ; 

see  Marriage 

—  thrift  of,  311,  313 

—  workers,  320,  321,  322 
Women's  suftrage,  86,  323 


Yellow  Unions,  see  Trade  Unions 


WILLIAM    BRENDON   AND   SON,   LTD. 
PRINTERS,    PLYMOUTH 


9 


^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


1.D.URL    JUN101966 


Form  L9-Series  444 


AA    001162  629    8 


